Posts

Chris Wallace’s Impartiality Questioned Due To His Giant Foam Finger Reading ‘Biden 2020’

CLEVELAND, OH—Some are questioning Chris Wallace’s neutrality in the debate tonight. Many say he constantly interrupted Trump and refused to challenge Biden. But others are pointing to more obvious clues, like the giant foam finger he wore that read “Biden 2020.”

“I just don’t feel like this guy is being totally unbiased,” said one viewer. “But, to be frank, I can’t really put my finger on the reason. He just really seems to be thumbing his nose at the idea of impartiality.”

“I wish I could point to the reason I suspect him of bias. His questions just didn’t quite have the ring of fairness about them. We could make an index of all the times he interrupted Trump, while he seemed to have some kind of pinky promise with Joe Biden not to contradict him. He just wasn’t in the middle.”

“I gotta hand it to him though: he had a real grip of the issues.”

RELATED POLITICAL SATIRE:

Prankster Trump Swaps Biden’s Mask Out With A Trump 2020 Mask

Broadcast Signal Accidentally Picks Up Two Old Men Yelling At Each Other Instead Of Presidential Debate

CNN Pre-Debate Poll Shows Biden Clearly Won Debate

Ilhan Omar Seen Driving Giant Industrial Ballot Harvester Through Minneapolis

Bombshell Report Reveals Christian Believes Christian Things

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by The Babylon Bee is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

PREDICTION: Fox’s Chris Wallace Will Never Moderate a Presidential Debate Again

That is my prediction of course.  And, heck, maybe last night’s train wreck of a Presidential debate will cool enthusiasm for any more debates this year (or forever!).

I got up this morning pretty down-in-the-dumps after staying up past my bedtime for what I expected would be a hot debate, but never dreamed it would go off the rails as badly as it did.

Not long into the debate it became clear that Biden and Wallace were double-teaming to take down Trump.  Furious, I switched to watching comments fly by on twitter and realized it was apparent to everyone, Left and Right, that Wallace had stepped in to debate Trump whenever Trump sought a response from Biden.

Because I am too lazy to do it, I am so glad to see this compilation by Ryan Saavedra at the Daily Wire of many of the tweets I read in real time last night—tweets that told me that I wasn’t imaging things!

Chris Wallace Faces Intense Backlash, Including From Colleagues, Over Bias During Debate

Fox News host Chris Wallace, a registered Democrat, faced intense backlash on Tuesday night for what was widely deemed as bias in the debate in the favor of Democrat Joe Biden and against Republican President Donald Trump.

One of the issues that Wallace was called out for the most was how he appeared to let Biden interrupt Trump but would jump in to interrupt Trump when Trump would talk over Biden.

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade even noted the discrepancy and called it out on social media, writing: “Why is @JoeBiden allowed to interrupt? @realDonaldTrump is not.”

Continue reading here to see what many citizen and media commenters said on the subject.

By the way, as hot as Trump was he did not call Biden names while Biden called Trump a liar and a clown.

LOL!  One good thing about last night was Joe Biden’s efforts to distance himself from his radical Left base. 

I’m guessing that right now AOC and her gang are working on a plan for him to be so sick he wouldn’t be able to continue in a role as Prez of the US right after inauguration day (if he should win).

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Bibigate – The Contretemps over Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Last Saturday night a retired U.S. Navy officer said “I’ll bet you even money that Bibi will withdraw from the proposed speech before a joint session of Congress”. I joshed him and said “I wouldn’t count on it.”

Sunday, I received suggestions that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should have a Plan B given the rising contretemps in the media over US House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to talk about Iran before a Joint Session of Congress. There  was a welter of criticism from the White House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and mainstream media talking heads  included David Brooks of the New York Times and  Chris Wallace and Shepherd Smith of  FoxNews.  They were admonishing Speaker Boehner and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer with terms like “dicey, wicked more for photo op” and “partisan politics” and “unwise for Israel.”  It was ostensibly about the lack of courtesy shown the President by not giving prior notice to the White House of the invitation extended to Netanyahu.  There was pique by certain unnamed senior officials in the White House over what some might call Bibigate.

However, let us remember there was increasing  bi-partisan support for new Iran nuclear sanctions legislation despite  the President’s warning that he would veto it if it was passed. New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez was particularly incensed at the President for his questioning his motivations.  Menendez said: “The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran. And it feeds to the Iranian narrative of victimization, when they are the ones with the original sin.”  Lest, we forget, the President had threatened a veto if increased Iran legislation passed.  It was abundantly clear in the January 16th Joint Press Conference at the White House when the President Obama agreed with UK PM David Cameron’s remarks, urging Senators on Capitol Hill not to take up new sanctions legislation at a “sensitive time”. Thus, one could speculate that Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu on January 21st to speak to a Joint Session of Congress in early March was a rebuttal to the President.

The rancor over Bibigate was visible in the final week of January into February.  Wednesday, January 28thCNN released a clip of Fareed Zakaria’s February 1st GPS interview with President Obama.  Obama suggested that a visit with Netanyahu was “inappropriate,” as it was too close to the upcoming March Knesset elections.  The President said, “I’m declining to meet with him simply because our general policy is, we don’t meet with any world leader two weeks before their election, [I] think that’s inappropriate. And that’s true with some of our closest allies.”  Those comments engendered another rebuttal that the White House may have been giving tacit support to the involvement of Presidential Campaign aide Jim Byrd in advising the Labor-Hanuat opposition to Netanyahu in the Knesset general elections.

Friday, January 30th, Jeffrey Goldberg published an interview in The Atlantic with Israeli Ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, a former US Republican strategist and member of the Netanyahu’s inner circle.   Dermer discussed the background for Boehner’s issuance of the invitation to Netanyahu to speak to Congress on Iran. Dermer suggested that while the Prime Minister “meant no disrespect towards President Obama … Netanyahu must speak up while there is still time to speak up”.

That led Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson on the blog Legal Insurrection to opine that Obama’s not offended; he just wants Bibi out of office.

The Hill round up on the Sunday Talk shows had comments from Rep. Paul Ryan on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Arizona Senator John McCain on CNN’s “State of The Union.”  Over the issue of Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu Ryan said,” The Invitation to Israeli prime minister was ‘absolutely’ appropriate. I don’t know if I would say it’s antagonizing”.  McCain drew attention to the new low in U.S. – Israel relations under Obama saying, “It’s the worst that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.”

Virtually out of nowhere, Sunday, February 1st, commentary from an “Insight” blog post of the Israeli Institute for National Security Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University shed light on a bizarre theory of what was behind Bibigate.  The author of the INSS post, Zaki Shalom, suggested:

The backdrop for the Administration’s expressed dissatisfaction with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s intention to present his position on negotiations with Iran to Congress, creating a rather transparent linkage between Israel’s positions on negotiations with Iran and sanctions, and U.S. willingness to assist in combating the Palestinian attempt to exert international legal and diplomatic pressure on Israel.

On Thursday, January 30, 2015, the Senate Banking Committee voted out a ‘softer’ version of the Kirk –Menendez Sanctions legislation by a vote of 18 to 4, including six Democrats.  As reported by The Hill, the legislation:

… Would impose sanctions on Iran if a comprehensive agreement to roll back its nuclear program is not reached by June 30 and would allow the president to waive sanctions indefinitely for 30 days at a time.

However, the bill would be shelved until March 24th for a possible floor vote.  Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said, “All of us understand it’s not going to be voted on before March 24”. While the measure may portend a possible override vote should President Obama veto it that still requires Senator Menendez to keep the group of 17 Democratic Senators who support this version of sanctions legislation in the bi-partisan alliance.

Israeli concern over a weak final agreement by March 24th  is reflected  in a Times of Israel report published  Sunday, February 1st,” US sources deride Israeli ‘nonsense’ on Obama giving in to Iran.”  Israeli  sources contend that Iran is likely to get 80 % of what it is seeking- the ability to continue enrichment with  upwards of 9,000 centrifuges, especially the advanced IR-2s. The Israelis believe that would give Iran nuclear breakout within weeks.  Add to that mix Iran flaunting pictures in a ToA  report of a Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) capable of covering all of Europe. That is to be followed in 2015 to 2016 by one cap ICBM range. Of course there a number of us who believe that Iran may already have purchased nuclear weapons from rogue regimes, but may lack nuclear warheads, which are likely to be supplied by North Korea to be mounted on those ICBMs.

Especially as the President observed, there is less than a 50/50 chance of reaching an agreement. Then assuming the current polls are correct and Bibi retains the ability to form a new Knesset coalition after the March 17th election, he may speak with both authority and strength.

As a usual astute observer of Israel from Europe, Imre Herzog, opined when I wrote him on my side bet “you might win the bet”.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. Washington Times File Photo  5-24-2011.