Share This Article with a Friend!

The Clinton Strategy Behind Liberal Media Attacks On Matt Lauer

Yesterday, in our article “Hillary Clinton Rope-a-Dopes Matt Lauer” we quoted the old British sporting aphorism that the best referees remain largely unseen to justify our view that NBC’s liberal Matt Lauer did an OK job of moderating the network’s “Commander in Chief Forum” featuring Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. 

Judging by the polls it seems that everyone believes that Donald Trump won the first face-off between the two candidates, and that in part explains the liberal media attacks on Lauer, who was expected to put his thumb on the scale to help Hillary Clinton, not act as a relatively impartial moderator. 

Hillary press conferenceSo, the Clinton machine is attacking Matt Lauer to intimidate anyone in the media from questioning Hillary Clinton about her long list of wrong doings and failures, be they emails, the foundation, Benghazi, or her multitude of lies and conflicting statements. 

And it is nothing new, liberal Democrats in the media do it every time a journalist acts like an actual journalist – especially where the presidential debates are concerned. 

As CHQ Chairman Richard A. Viguerie documented in his book TAKEOVER, the result in the general election debates is that Republican presidential candidates are always outnumbered two or three to one in a fight that pits them against a liberal debate moderator and their liberal Democratic opponent.  

After the first 2012 debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, which Romney clearly won, moderator and PBS host James Lehrer was roundly criticized by his fellow liberals for not wading in and helping Obama.  

Still, he slipped several interesting “tells” of his liberal bias, such as referring to Romney’s economic plans as “trickle-down” and breaking up Romney’s train of thought by calling time when he was prosecuting especially effective attacks on Obama, while letting Obama go well past his deadline to finish his thoughts.  

But these were fairly minor things compared to how Lehrer handled the 2000 debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore.  

In 2000, Lehrer moderated all three presidential debates. In the third one, as the Media Research Center pointed out, “a town hall debate, Lehrer approved mostly liberal questions from the ‘uncommitted’ audience. Eight questions came from the Left, only two could be counted as conservative, and five were requests for information without an ideological tone.”  

And that’s the key to how liberal bias at the debates, and in the media at large, works. It is not so much that reporters will lie or make up things to make conservatives look bad—it is the premises of the questions and even the questions themselves that accept an underlying belief in liberal policy choices.  

It is the old joke about asking a candidate, “When did you stop beating your spouse?” turned into “Why do you want to starve poor people by sending food stamp programs back to the states?” 

Democrats never buy into the idea that a “debate” is a nonpartisan affair. 

But the problem isn’t so much the Republican presidential candidates as it is the establishment Republicans on the Commission on Presidential Debates and the leadership of the Republican National Committee who are not innocent bystanders. 

More reflective of the establishment Republican Party of 1987 when the commission was set up, and the DC Republican establishment, than it is of today’s more conservative GOP, the Republicans on the Commission are all too ready to cede the role of debate moderator and agenda setter to the establishment media elite they meet at Georgetown salons. 

The bad news for Donald Trump, now that the GOP is once again playing the Party of Stupid, is that since Lauer was hammered by his fellow liberals for not being an aggressive moderator, they can expect the moderators of the 2016 debates to avoid the pounding Lauer took by doing their best to help the Democratic candidate— especially since that candidate is Hillary Clinton.  

For example, this year two Far Left media figures (we won’t call them journalists) are set to moderate two of the presidential debates. 

Martha Raddatz, who will moderate one debate (and moderated the vice presidential debate in 2012) is a fawning member of the Washington liberal sisterhood that has promoted and supported Hillary Clinton since the day she arrived in DC back in 1993.  

Raddatz has deep ties to the old-line liberal media and to Washington’s Democratic establishment, having been married to the son of Washington’s ultimate establishment liberal, longtime Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, and later to Obama’s FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski. 

Anderson Cooper, a notorious liberal, will also moderate a debate. 

And here is what Republicans get when they act like the Party of Stupid and agree to a debate moderated by the same Anderson Cooper whose vulgar jocularity with David Gergen resulted in this crass comment about the Tea Party during a 2009 broadcast, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging.” 

If you’d never heard about “tea bagging” (as we hadn’t) before this, take our word for that it refers to a homosexual activity.  

During the 2011 debt ceiling debate, CNN conducted a poll that Cooper reported as showing 64 percent of the public supported raising taxes, making Republicans appear to be dishonest for claiming most Americans were opposed to a tax increase. What Cooper failed to report was that the same CNN poll showed that two-thirds of those polled favored the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan advocated by conservatives and passed by House Republicans 

The liberal scalding of Matt Lauer by his fellow “journalists” is part of the Clinton’s final 60-day strategy of coordinated attacks on anyone (especially in the media) who questions Hillary Clinton on her vulnerabilities on the email scandal, the foundation scandal, her disastrous decisions on Libya, Benghazi, Iraq, etc.  and was a warning to the rest of the media community and the moderators of the upcoming official Commission on Presidential Debates that impartiality will not be tolerated. 

It's coordinated and strategic.  

It is like a basketball coach giving a hard time to a referee to intimidate him from ever calling a foul on his players again.   

The Clinton strategy going into the all-important debates is simple: rope-a-dope the public and the press and put the personal credibility of individual debate moderators and members of the media to the test, rather than allow voters to focus on Hillary Clinton’s credibility and performance, both of which are losing issues for the severely damaged Democratic candidate.

Share this

Matt did a fair interview.

Matt did a fair interview. The left just ridicules him for not bowing and scraping before the feet of a thief and lier. Good for you Matt.

Matt Lauer with HRC

HRC took control of the discussion from Matt. Her motive was to wast time on her subject and not allow for additional questions.
She must be held accountable for her violations on National Security. As SS she was a classifying authority and new exactly what is and is not classified. She violated the law and must pay the price, just like and other citizen, holding a security clearance, that violates National Security. A very serious issue that the main stream media is failing to report. Her clearance needs to be withdrawn, thereby making her ineligible to receive any classified information for here forward.
HRC is a very deceptive individual that should never become President of our great nation.
When the main stream media reports the truth, and the American people deserve to know the truth, you will begin to see honesty in our government officials.
As a retired Army Colonel, having held security clearances of the highest level, I know smoke, and HRC is blowing a lot of smoke.