Was is appropriate for Stephanopoulos to moderate the debate?

[The Vorlon]

As a former staffer and campaign manager for the Clintons, was it appropriate for George Stephanopoulos to moderate the debate?

[MODU]

I think it is possible to separate your prior work with your current one.  One of the many reasons we have things like non-disclosure agreements and what not.  In this particular case, with the fact that the debate management itself was poor to begin with, it wouldn't have made a difference if Stephanopoulos was being partial to Killary or not.  Nothing of substance came out of it until the end, and even that was weak.  Of course, with the way many of the pro-Obama moderators in prior debates conducted things, it would only be "justice" for Killary to get a little bonus for once.

[The Vorlon]

I think it is possible to separate your prior work with your current one.  One of the many reasons we have things like non-disclosure agreements and what not.  In this particular case, with the fact that the debate management itself was poor to begin with, it wouldn't have made a difference if Stephanopoulos was being partial to Killary or not.  Nothing of substance came out of it until the end, and even that was weak.  Of course, with the way many of the pro-Obama moderators in prior debates conducted things, it would only be "justice" for Killary to get a little bonus for once.

So.. as a deep hypothetical....

Assume for a moment GWBush could run for a third term and choose to do so...

Would Karl Rove, who held an aproximately equivalent position for Mr. Bush as Mr. Stephanopoulos held for The Clintons, be an appropriate moderator?

Actually, by and large Stephanopoulos is actually less partisan than many other journalists.. but you gotta admit the notion of Karl Rove as a moderator is pretty absurd.. why is Stephanopoulos any less crazy?

[Lunar]

I agree that George S. was a horrible choice.  But I'm afraid I have to call out a few problems with that Rove analogy:

1) We have to assume it's a Republican primary
2) We have to assume it's been 11 years since Rove has served with Bush
3) We have to assume Bush has been out of power 7-8 years
4) We have to assume it's Laura running

But it would still be unfair, just less so.

[MODU]

I think it is possible to separate your prior work with your current one.  One of the many reasons we have things like non-disclosure agreements and what not.  In this particular case, with the fact that the debate management itself was poor to begin with, it wouldn't have made a difference if Stephanopoulos was being partial to Killary or not.  Nothing of substance came out of it until the end, and even that was weak.  Of course, with the way many of the pro-Obama moderators in prior debates conducted things, it would only be "justice" for Killary to get a little bonus for once.

So.. as a deep hypothetical....

Assume for a moment GWBush could run for a third term and choose to do so...

Would Karl Rove, who held an aproximately equivalent position for Mr. Bush as Mr. Stephanopoulos held for The Clintons, be an appropriate moderator?

Actually, by and large Stephanopoulos is actually less partisan than many other journalists.. but you gotta admit the notion of Karl Rove as a moderator is pretty absurd.. why is Stephanopoulos any less crazy?

As I said, it's possible to separate your prior work from your current one.  No one that sits in that chair is going to be free of bias and/or favoritism, even if you've picked someone who is registered in a different party and no care about who wins the nomination.  For the parts I watched, George did an ok job, at least much better than Wolf has done.  And, as far as Karl goes, George isn't as cerebral as Karl, so he couldn't scheme a whole debate in an attempt to trap someone at the end of the debate as Karl might.  Two different beasts all together. 

[AndrewTX]

I was just talking about this last night. I dont think it was appropriate for him to have moderated that debate.

[elcorazon]

better analogy would be that it's the 2016 election and Jeb Bush is facing an upstart republican in the primaries.  Would Rove then be an inappropriate person to moderate the debates?  Assume also, Rove has been reporting for the network sponsoring the debate for several years and has a record which includes both praise and criticism of Republicans of various stripes.

Not sure how I answer, but I do think this is a closer analogy.

[JSojourner]

George Stuffinenvelopes is okay.  It was Charlie Gibson who really screwed the pooch.

[Torie]

It is not as if Steph left his service with the Clintons on good terms, because they weren't. There is no there here. The sour grapes from team Obama over it all is unbecoming. It makes the candidate seem in need of cosseting and spoiled.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Staffer when?  And when did you come back?  Welcome back.

[J. J.]

A friend of mine was complaining about it, and I think she had a point.  I vote not appropriate.

[The Vorlon]

Staffer when?  And when did you come back?  Welcome back.

Stephanopoulos was Clinton's campaign manager in 1992 amd 1996 - played a roll +/- equivalent to that which Karl Rove played for BUsh in 2000 and 2004.

Actually George S is a reasonably good moderator of the THis week show.

My point in raising this was that the media somehow thinks a profoundly partisan individual (Sorry.. but the notion that Clinton's bleeping campaign manger is somehow a non-partisan in the political wars is absurd) crossing over to be an "objective" journalist is something they accept without questiion, while if say, oh Fox News, were to hire the odd reporter with ties to the GOP, suddenly they are biased?

The number of "Journalists" with direct ties to the Democrats is rather astonishing, while the number with ties to the GOP is rare sparse. 

As to when I got back...

"I have always been here..."

[Nym90]

Not nearly as inappropriate as if it had been a general election debate. I watch his show every week and as an Obama supporter I don't feel my guy is getting slighted by Stephanopoulos.