![2012 Debates Story Update: Fired and Disgraced Yahoo Bureau Chief Tied To Moderators Employers]()
by | Sep 3, 2012
The news last week that recently hired Yahoo News Washington DC Bureau Chief David Chalian was fired for a truly unbelievable “hot mic†moment was bad enough–but digging into his background re-enforces the mess that likely awaits Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan come debate time.
Chalian was fired for yucking it up with fellow reporters by saying that “They (Republicans) are not concerned at all. They are happy to be having a party while black people are drowning (Hurricane Isaac).â€Â You can hear the “hot mic†comment here along with the, almost as disturbing, huge laughs this got from the reporters he was talking to.
In an earlier piece, I made the point that the folks selected to moderate the three Presidential debates and the one VP debate were very concerning–and possibly incapable of approaching this crucial role objectively. This revelation regarding David Chalian should win over any of those who thought I was making too much of this story–here is why.
David Chalian’s Background
As noted by Tucker Carlson, Chalian was not a mere media foot soldier. He had risen through the ranks to become Political Director at ABC news (2007-2010), Political Editor for PBS NewsHour (2010-2012), and had just been hired as the Washington DC Bureau Chief for Yahoo News (November 14, 2011-last week). Not too shockingly, his professional accomplishments include an Emmy nomination for producing Charlie Gibson’s infamous Alaska interview with Sarah Palin in 2008. There is simply no chance that his personal hyper-partisan and crass political viewpoint did not come up in the private job interviews he had with the network brass that eventually hired him.
Worse yet is that, recalling the four news organizations who are supplying the moderators, two of Mr. Chalian’s former employers will be controlling the conversation in what will be the most watched debates in political history.
First, you have the PBS NewsHour.  This is both where Chalian had worked until last November as Political Editor and the home of Jim Lehrer who will moderate the first debate. Second, you have ABC News, where Chilian served as Political Director for three years. This news room is providing Martha Radditz as the moderator for the Paul Ryan vs. Joe Biden debate.
This is not to say that these moderators share the same despicable view of Republicans that Chalian was revealed to have, but what it does point to is the internal culture that thrives in these organizations. Simply put–there is a great chance that this bias not only exists in the other “journalists†who have climbed the totem pole at these networks, but that it will shine through one way or another in the upcoming debates.
Upon being hired by Yahoo News last year, Chilain did an interview in which he said working with Yahoo would provide, “an unparalleled opportunity to deliver high impact, high quality storytelling in what is shaping up to be a really consequential presidential election.â€Â Huh…I wonder what he meant by “high impact†storytelling?
((To read original story click here– “The 2012 Presidential Debates: When Moderators Aren’t Moderate†))
The post 2012 Debates Story Update: Fired and Disgraced Yahoo Bureau Chief Tied To Moderators Employers appeared first on The Conservative Reader.
![2012 Debates Story Update: Fired and Disgraced Yahoo Bureau Chief Tied To Moderators Employers]()
by | Aug 23, 2012
Lost in the sea of coverage following Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, was the news that the moderators for the three Presidential debates, and one VP debate, were also selected.
There is a certain kind of news one receives that falls into the category of “this may or may not be bad—but it can’t be goodâ€. For Republicans, learning of the moderators that will be at the helm for these four debates certainly earns this distinction.
In order of appearance they are- Jim Lehrer (PBS News Hour), Martha Raddatz (VP Debate-ABC News), Candy Crowley (CNN), and Bob Schieffer (CBS News).
Since the Romney campaign had to sign off on each moderator, it is hard to imagine that they could not have demanded better (even given that the Obama camp also had to sign off on each). By any measure, Jim Lehrer, Candy Crowley, and Bob Schieffer all lean to the left, and the networks that employ them all trail badly in the ratings to their direct competition.
Even if you were to say that these three were the fairest that both sides could agree to, giving a green light to Martha Raddatz for the VP debate was certainly inexplicable. The reason for this being, she is a “foreign affairs correspondent†which is not Ryan’s forte, and in fact he was brought into the race for his economic mastery. One has to wonder how much focus will be put on non-domestic topics just based on her area of expertise. On the surface this seems a major concession to the Obama campaign, and one that needed not be given.
The reason these moderators are so important is three-fold. First, with all the polls showing that the election has a likelihood of being razor-close, every small detail that goes into them has a chance to be huge. Second, like was the case with the Republican Primary debates, these four showdowns will smash records for viewership and the audience will include millions of Independents sizing up the candidates for the first time. Lastly, and most importantly, the questions asked of the candidates have the ability to dominate the crucial weeks of news cycles leading up to Election Day.
So What Should The Focus Be?
Poll after poll shows that for the American people ground zero in this election is the economy. A Pew Research Poll taken from June 7-17 asked voters to name the top issue that they will be considering in the voting booth in November. The top four answers were Jobs (35%), the Budget Deficit (23%), Health Care (19%), and Social Security (11%).
The danger in having biased moderators was on full display for the Republican Primary debate moderated by George Stephanopoulos, when, seemingly out of nowhere, he felt the need to drill down with Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum on the issue of female contraception. This gave birth (no pun intended) to the Sandra Fluke phase of the campaign and a multi-week sidetrack by the media away from the serious issues of the day. There is simply no doubt that, should they choose to, a moderator can actively push the focus to issues that are not widely being considered by voters—and into territory that favors one candidate or another.
As will be the case in October, it just so happens that the issues voters themselves say are paramount are the exact issues that President Obama is desperate to avoid talking about. In theory this would make the debates a huge opportunity for Romney and Ryan to drive home their message—something tells me it won’t quite go down that way.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but will these moderators have the gumption to ask President Obama why a myriad of the promises he made while running in 2008 have been unachieved or even un-attempted? Will they remind the American people that twice the President had budgets voted on by Congress, and he failed to receive one solitary vote for either of them? Will they ask why he promised to cut the deficit in half but instead oversaw three years of trillion dollar plus deficits? Or will they inquire why he has not laid a plan on the table for reforming entitlements, after saying himself this was crucial in 2008?
Republican Are Right to Be Nervously Skeptical
All things being equal, and according directly to the polls, the topics discussed during all four of the debates should almost exclusively be jobs, the deficit, the long term health of entitlement programs, and foreign policy. What I fear instead is painful subjection to multiple questions on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and student loan debt— knowing all the while the fruit is rusting on the vine.
It is true that the level of professionalism that the four moderators will show is yet to be determined, and perhaps at least three of them will be fair (I hold no hope for Bob Schieffer). But given the track record of behavior the major media outlets have shown to Republicans in recent years, I’d say a mildly-crippling nervousness is more than justified.
After all, barring a phenomenal performance by both Republican candidates, one thing is certain—“it may or may not be bad…but it won’t be goodâ€.
The post The 2012 Presidential Debates: When Moderators Aren’t Moderate appeared first on The Conservative Reader.
![2012 Debates Story Update: Fired and Disgraced Yahoo Bureau Chief Tied To Moderators Employers]()
by | Jul 6, 2012
The bedrock of winning elections at every major level of politics is building coalitions of supporters for whom you can count on to head to the polls and cast a vote for you. Especially in a country as large and non-monolithic as ours, coalition building on some level is a requirement for victory and often explains why politicians are so willing to speak often, but say very little.
A close look at President Obama’s effort in this area reveals that he has elevated this process to an art form—but far from art, what he has created is an ugly picture beneficial to himself, but terrible for America.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act certainly carries the negatives of energizing Republicans and leaving him to defend a tax increase, it is foolish not to acknowledge the potential political windfall that he has unleashed. He has managed to cement a new member in his group of coalitions—a group with millions of potential voters.
As we have discussed here before, for decades the Democrat party in America has used the social safety net and the laws of this country to build a formidable coalition of voters. The newest members are the up to 33 million people who will now be guaranteed health insurance by virtue of being a breathing American. For the first time in history an American president will be able to say ‘if you vote Democrat you will have (possibly for free) health insurance, and if you vote Republican you will not’, a potent motivator.
The addition of the health care voter coalition can now be added to the two others that he has bolstered recently, in what may be the most cynical and politically motivated two months in American presidential history.
First it was going on record with the news that he had “evolved†on the issue and now supports gay marriage. This was followed by a surprise move to essentially remove the possibility of deportation for young illegal aliens. While the gay community is relatively small, bolstering his claim to the Hispanic vote was a huge benefit to his Electoral College math. Early next week, we will have a story detailing how the health care law really has more to do with sealing up the Hispanic vote than anything else.
Besides the Latino vote, Obamacare allows the Democrat Party to further stack the deck against Republicans as they try to implement the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid reforms in the Paul Ryan budget over the next few years. Top Democrat strategists have to be secretly celebrating, knowing full well that the already difficult politics of reforming these programs just got down right suicidal now that 16 million more people have been added to the rolls.
Moving Forward
The Presidents relentless coalition building will continue from now until November. With the economy not in position to rebound at all, and the two major initiatives of his Presidency either unpopular (health care) or ineffectual (the stimulus), he really has no other choice. I am predicting that sometime in the next few months he will make a shocking public policy jester to the unions, who remain the last sizeable group he has not tried to directly entice.
Though it goes against the grain, at this point I would consider advising Mitt Romney to not moderate on illegal immigration and stay as far right on this issue as he was during the presidential primary. The reasons for this are several.
First, it is the law and the right thing to do—we simply cannot be the only nation on earth that doesn’t enforce its borders. Though many are quick to forget it, this is a message that resonates with nearly all Republicans, and millions of Independents. Second, there is simply no way for Republicans to match what Democrats can offer. While Republicans and Latinos have large overlaps in religious beliefs and family values, Democrats are in essence offering citizenship, free or nearly free health care, and an ever-expanding web of financial assistance that delivers from birth to death.
It may be high time to face the facts—winning over the Hispanic community is not going to happen anytime soon, and the more Republicans bend and soften on these issues the more they enrage fellow Republicans and appear hypocritical to Independents.
The irony here is that many of the Republicans who have been hesitant to support Mitt Romney, largely due to their belief that he tries to be all things to all people, are the same people that are urging him to cow tow to the Hispanic vote and moderate his position on illegal immigration.
There are still tens of millions of Americans who still believe strongly that we are a nation of laws. Should Mitt Romney take a stand on this issue and add this too often ignored group to his list of coalitions, it may end up being a net positive in November.
The post Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions appeared first on The Conservative Reader.
by John Bloom | Jan 14, 2012
Froma Harrop, is a syndicated columnist, born in New York City and a liberal writer and author. Her columns appear regularly in many major newspapers. She wrote the article “The absence of a ‘Humanity Clause’ at Bain Capital†published in the DSM Register on 1/13/2012
Ms. Harrop accurately states that Bain Capital bought majority control of Worldwide Grinding Systems (WGS) in 1993 for about $75 million. The rest of her story has the truth of a jigsaw puzzle with 10% of the parts showing. She neglects to inform us that the previous owner of WGS, Armco Inc., incurred a $40 million book loss on the sale of WGS to Bain. Obviously WGS was a troubled business or their owner would not have taken such a large loss to sell it. Healthy manufacturers normally sell for 4 to 5 times their book value.
Income for WGS operations averaged $11.5 million for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 excluding a 1992 special charge of $19.1 for closing a foundry and reducing the work force. So, the workforce reductions were well underway before Bain Capital bought it.
Bain’s purchase price of $75 million reflected a price/earnings ratio of about 6.5. Purchases are made on forward looking earnings estimates. With the growing competition from China in this type of manufacturing business, Bain’s price appears to be fair or better than fair.
Equity in GSI (the parent set up to acquire WGS and other similar companies),:
11/11/93 $ 10.9,
12/31/93 $ 14.0 (post sale to Bain)
12/31/94 $ -29.9 (following dividend to investors noted in article)
12/31/95 $ 106.6 (restructuring with $132 million additional paid in capital)
12/31/96 $ 112.8
Conclusion, yes there was a large dividend paid to the investors who facilitated the acquisition from Armco and the refinancing of the new GSI entity that acquired the WGS assets as well as those of other companies. However, the capital structure moving forward after 1995 was adequate.
Roger Regulbrugge, referenced in the article, was Chairman and CEO after the Bain takeover and was compensated in 1996 about $ 1 million excluding stock options. Under his leadership GSI Cost of Product Sold averaged about 86% for 1994, 1995 and 1996. This is a pathetic ratio and is more to blame for the company’s failure than the debt to equity ratio, was a quite normal, 3.4 at the end of 1996.
Froma Harrop’s article appears to be another Progressive hack job on Capitalism, quoting a few facts without context. WGS was a distressed tired company under Armco, who happily sold it at $40 million loss to Bain Capital. Bain reorganized the business, acquired new financing and investment but could not overcome the productivity problems internally and the foreign competition externally.
Sources: Armco Inc. 10-k for 12/31/ 1993; GS Technologies Corporation 10-k405 3/18/97
![2012 Debates Story Update: Fired and Disgraced Yahoo Bureau Chief Tied To Moderators Employers]()
by | Dec 29, 2011
Caucus Locator Service
First of all, if you live in Iowa and don’t know for sure where your caucus site is located, you’ll want to click this link to find it.  If you still can’t figure it out (don’t be ashamed… it can be challenging) we want to help.  Please email us at [email protected].  Please include your name, email address and home address (I promise we will not keep this information for any reason).  We will reply as quickly as possible with your caucus location.
Candidates for President
If you haven’t yet taken a look at the candidates, there any number of resources available to do so.  I think it is a good idea, more than anything, to look at the candidates’ web sites and see what they have to say for themselves there.  Here are the links to those sites:
Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain (included because he is still listed as a candidate officially)
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Buddy Roemer
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Other Caucus Information
The Iowa Caucus is often looked upon, along with the New Hampshire Primary, as a bell-weather for the entire Presidential Nominating Process. Â Some very important points:
- The Iowa Caucus occurs every two years.
- The purpose of the Iowa Caucus is to discuss and decide on components of the party platform, elect convention delegates to the County Convention, elect representatives to the County Central Committees, and during the year of a Presidential Election to poll party members on their preferences for the party’s candidate for President.
- This is a party activity and only members of the party that are residents of the precinct may participate at a precinct caucus, although others may be granted opportunity to speak by the Chair.
- Any resident of the caucus precinct can register to become a party member at the caucus event.
- The caucus meeting is governed by Robert’s Rules of Order.
The following are some additional details provided by the Iowa GOP:
Below is a detailed overview of what will happen at 1,774 precincts in the state of Iowa on caucus night, January 3, 2012.
- All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival. Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.
- The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.
- After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.
- Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.
- All votes are then collected.
- Every vote is counted. The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.
- A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.
- RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media. To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.
- We will be reporting the votes for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, “No Preference,†and “Other.â€
- “No Preference†votes include those who vote “present,†“no preference, “uncommitted,†or “none of the above.â€
- Within fourteen days of the caucus, certified results will be released for a complete breakdown of all caucus votes that were cast by precinct.
- After the Presidential preference poll is completed the caucus will elect precinct committee representatives; delegates, alternates, and junior delegates to the county convention; and discuss and submit platform resolutions for consideration at the county convention.
For any other questions or inquiries please contact Nicole Sizemore at [email protected] or at 515-868-2507.
The news last week that recently hired Yahoo News Washington DC Bureau Chief David Chalian was fired for a truly unbelievable “hot mic†moment was bad enough–but digging into his background re-enforces the mess that likely awaits Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan come debate time.
