As this goes to post, Wolf Blitzer is preparing carefully and cautiously for the Republican foreign policy / national security debate he will be moderating tonight on CNN.
The questions were written long ago, but they are being checked and rechecked again. No chances can be taken tonight.
The hopes of the Beltway Republican media and blogosphere rest on Wolf’s shoulders.
He must be stopped, at all costs. He being Newt:
And so it is that I will come to TV tonight hoping to see one of the few anchors who has the stature and the credibility to call out Gingrich take the candidate of bluster on for his phony game of pounding the press by telling moderators how “stupid” (one of his favorite words) or “wrong” (another) their questions are.
Blitzer is a journalist who prizes civility and even-handedness in his handling of interviews, which is another reason he might be one of the few who can challenge Gingrich to answer the questions asked of him instead of trying to use the stage to direct a dishonest attack on the press.
Others have written more eloquently than I can do in this space about what a shabby excuse for an intellectual Gingrich is [link mine] — and what it, perhaps, says about how dumbed down we have become collectively to consider him one.
There’s a civil but firm way to deal with bullies like Gingrich in follow-up questions and remarks, and I hope Blitzer will use his stature and intelligence to do that tonight. I’ll put Blitzer’s professional experience and John Hopkins University graduate education in international politics up against Gingrich’s education and intellectual track record any day.
Come on Wolf, you can do it. Keep their hopes alive.
Update: SoccerDad notes that the author of the quoted text is not a Republican. But his sentiments match exactly the wave of anti-Newt sentiment of Republican pundits, which is an interesting point.
And thanks to reader Jeff who e-mailed this link to Blitzer’s abysmal Jeopardy performance, Wolf Blitzer Loses on Jeopardy to a Comedian and an Actress. This time, however, Wolf only has to ask the questions, not answer them, unless Newt subjects him to cross examination.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Prof, a while back I watched an hour and a half of Newt lecturing (and taking questions) in Carville’s Poli Sci related course at Tulane. If the Blitzer thinks he is Newt’s intellectual equal (let alone superior), he is sorely mistaken. I was immediately struck by how quickly, cogently and succinctly he responsded to every question (or, as the case was sometimes, challenge/question from either Carville or his wife).
Let anyone say what they will about Newt, but intellectual deficiencies aren’t something he comes anywhere near struggling with, ever. His political acumen is equally as remarkable – that is, I think, what struck me most profoundly at the time. FTR, the relatively smallish class had 17 “young republicans’ and perhaps 25 or so primarily Democrat students.
I mostly lurk and read here, but every now and again…
Newt is a dope and Obama is an intellectual giant? We shall see about that should there ever be a debate between the two. Newt wouldn’t have to scold the moderators if they didn’t ask gotcha and other idiotic questions. If Blitzer thinks he can argue with Newt on national TV without looking either like a dolt or mean spirited jerk he should think again.
Hopefully, but doubtfully, Blitzer will learn the lesson of Scott Pelley. Blitzer is the moderator, not a debater. Obviously,the writer for the Baltimore Sun is unclear on the difference. If Blitzer does try to enter the debate, he should be hammered into 1/4 of his previous height.
Persecuted much?
So – what else is new? the “job” of every left-wing moderator so far has been to ‘get’ the Republican candidates. get them to squirm, get them to stumble, collect the gaffes – ask them questions that are driven by a left-wing mindset, promote the left-wing meme, and PRETEND that they, the arbiters of all things political, do this to all candidates.
If those truly ignorant ‘moderators’ would have opened their eyes, and seen beyond their ideology, we would not be dealing with Obama in the White House today.
if they had put one iota worth of real scrutiny on his dealings with Rezko, Ayres and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, his cronyism deals and payoffs while still contained to Illinois – but no – they will make their amends by ‘getting’ Gingrich, and Cain, and Perry and Bachmann, and on and on and on as long as the challenger has the audacity to register Republican.
That’s not a National Review editorial?
Windbag:
You made me laugh out loud!
I really should delete the bookmarks for both The Corner and National Review due to its ill-concealed Establishment Elitism, which I can no longer tolerate.
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA
Professor:
Aren’t you being guilty of the same thing you point the finger at “some Republican pundits” about?
You have obviously decided to cheer lead for Newt, which is well within your right. Your website is now a surrogate for the Newt website, visitors will decided whether or not that remains worthwhile.
But while you point at “some Republican pundits” for questioning Newt’s background (which is there right as part of the vetting process), you have become myopic and unwilling to consider any other eventuality other than a Newt nomination.
I think at this point, Newt, is more introspective about his background than the professor.
It always seems to end this way, a commenter who doesn’t like what he reads, starts off differing, and ends up insulting.
“you have become myopic and unwilling to consider any other eventuality other than a Newt nomination.”
I don’t recall him (Prof. Jacobson)saying anything like that. I don’t even recall him saying anything that would lead me to believe that. I *have* noticed you saying similar things and imputing them to him.
Seems to me that he’s just pushing the candidate he’s chosen to support. You obviously don’t agree with his choice. Meh. Have fun with Mittles.
If one man writes about which candidate he likes and a second person responds with something like “true, but here’s the problems I have with him”… well, that’s a discussion taking place.
If the second person comes back with “You’re a blind fool, stupid people like you shouldn’t have anything to say”… well, it’s no longer a discussion.
Conversation A is useful – we learn about strength and weakness of the candidates we are going to choose from.
Conversation B is useful as well – if your goal is to re-elect Obama.
Folks, it’s time we stop tearing into each other, and remember, the one taking down the country isn’t the GOP candidate who isn’t conservative enough for you, or doesn’t deliver stellar performance at the debates. The one taking down the country is the one who happens to be sitting in the Oval office.
DocWahala
Today’s Fortune Cookie:
“They were their own worst enemy”
@mdw9661 (if that’s even your real name)
I don’t understand your beef. The Professor came out and said he’s favoring Newt Gingrich at this point.
That’s called full disclosure … something many, if not most writers on the internet and in traditional media outlets refuse to do. What more do you want?
[…] Christians’ Access to White House – submitted by VA Right!Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion –Wolf Blitzer’s Terrible Burden submitted by The Mellow JihadiVia Meadia –Duke of Edinburgh Calls Wind Farms Useless submitted […]
I wish Romney had not dropped out of the last election. He was worlds better than McCain. I doubt he could have beat the anti Bush tide, or the media salivating over the one, but 2008 should have been his time to shine.
That said, I’m for both Newt or Perry over Romney.
[…] In·sur·rec·tion – Wolf Blitzer’s Terrible Burden submitted by The Mellow […]
[…] In·sur·rec·tion – Wolf Blitzer’s Terrible Burden submitted by The Mellow […]
[…] In·sur·rec·tion –Wolf Blitzer’s Terrible Burden submitted byThe Mellow […]