Stephanopoulos pulls out of debate after Clinton donations revealed

[txradioguy]

George Stephanopoulos, the chief anchor of ABC News, apologized on Thursday for not telling viewers or his bosses about $75,000 in recent donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The revelations shocked many in the television news industry and prompted stern reactions from a number of prominent Republicans. Within hours, Stephanopoulos came out and said he would recuse himself from ABC's planned Republican presidential primary debate, scheduled to take place next February.

"I don't want to be a distraction," he told CNNMoney, "so I'm not going to moderate that debate."

However, Stephanopoulos said, "I am going to continue to cover the 2016 campaign."

In a phone interview -- perhaps intended to stem the damage done by the revelations -- Stephanopoulos called the donations a mistake and reiterated his earlier apology.

Stephanopoulos was one of Bill Clinton's closest advisers during Clinton's first term as president. He is now one of the most-respected and best-paid anchors at ABC News.

The network is not taking any disciplinary action against him.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/14/media/george-stephanopoulos-apology/index.html

[txradioguy]

In all honesty he should be fired. Never should have been hired in the first place. This was a make work job for a Clinton hack to ensure they got friendly coverage the network got access.
 
These pseudo-journalists like Steffie...Russell Maddow and that lush Chris Matthews who have zero training in the business are ruining whats left of the journalism career field.

[thundley4]

Not one candidate should sit with an interview with him. ABC New should put a disclaimer on screen every time he does a political news story.

[SVPete]

Until ABC at least relegates Step-In-Awful-Stuff to covering golf and bowling the Rs should refuse to have dealing with ABC, and make very public their refusal is due to ABC assigning a partisan hack to cover political events.

Hiring Step-In-Awful-Stuff was a grossly obvious partisan political act. The only surprise is that it took this long for Step-In-Awful-Stuff to be exposed.

[thundley4]

It makes you wonder how many reporters do contribute to political campaigns.

[txradioguy]

It makes you wonder how many reporters do contribute to political campaigns.

Media's Campaign Donations Tilt 100-to-1 In Favor of Democrats 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democrats#sthash.WB2oy9MA.dpuf

[thundley4]

Media's Campaign Donations Tilt 100-to-1 In Favor of Democrats 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democrats#sthash.WB2oy9MA.dpuf

Maybe more surprising is that those at Fox broadcasting and the Fox News Channel combined to give $41,853 to the Democrats, with no listed donations going to the Republicans. (Only $1,280 was listed as coming from Fox News employees.)

So much for the conservative bias at Fox.

[Belle]

thundley4:  "So much for the conservative bias at Fox."
Right on.
I think of Fox as conservative as rinos are.
@ least they still have some intelligent/conservative contributors:  eg.  Krauthammer, Hayes, Ingraham, Pirro.
Then there's Prince Al-waleed bin Talal:
    http://politicalblindspot.com/what-alwaleed-is-accused-of-saying/ 

[Lacarnut]

Why can't Repubs demand that at least one conservative be chosen as a moderator in the Presidential primary and general election primaries? I think I know the answer...Stupidity!

Looks like we will have to endure 3 slobbering Democratic liberal @ss kissers asking softball questions to the candidate they support. Steph will just be replaced by another biased A-hole.

[SVPete]

It makes you wonder how many reporters do contribute to political campaigns.

That's a, "To ask is to answer," question. trg linked a link to a Newsbusters article; keep in mind, too, the two-way revolving door between MSM outlets and D Congress-Critter & presidential staff. Step-In-Awful-Stuff is far from unique, though perhaps the most glaringly obvious (now made more so).

[obumazombie]

Snuffleupagus once claimed there was no bias in the mainstream media.
If no bias means all in for lib/dem/socialists then they're it.
Eventually the dishonesty catches up to them like it did to Rather, and Williams.

[Belle]

Lacarnut:  "Why can't Repubs demand that at least one conservative be chosen as a moderator in the Presidential primary and general election primaries? "
Excellent question!
Your answer:  "Stupidity"
I partially agree.

If one can accept the premise that the Republican party has been for quite some time, infested with liberalism, then the obvious conclusion becomes since they agree with big spending, big government, cronyism, amnesty, open borders, hawkish @ wars, NSA secrecy, non-transparency...I could go on....& you also accept (2) Rinos are an integral part of the debate show (Rove & Priebus), the answer would be they welcome the liberal moderators.  This would be because rinos are no different than liberals or progressives EXCEPT to get elected they have to pretend to be somewhat conservative.
 
Classic examples. Senator Jeff Flake.  Ran on support of conservative values.  Baam...his true liberal self emerged, & swoosh, joined the gang of 8 on amnesty.  McCain did the same thing.  He supported Bush's amnesty.  Then, re-election, he pretended to go back to conservatism, visited the border, & verbalized the need for border patrol.  After re-election, he happily was an orchestrator of the gang of 8.  Many Arizonians realized their error, & tried to rectify it.  But its hard to fight city hall.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/strike-blow-rino-recall-mccain-flake/

Ah, what do I really know?  I'm just one of those wacko-birds.

Couldn't have said it better:
 
"America is now a de facto one-party state, where sclerotic big government Republicanism is indistinguishable from the policies promoted by the Democrats."

"The 2016 election cycle will not be a contest between Republicans and Democrats, but a battle between the entrenched power of the bipartisan political establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people."

Anyway, to stay on topic, this is why liberalism is invited & tolerated in Presidential debates.  Prove me wrong so I can have some hope.
 

[libertybele]

Why can't Repubs demand that at least one conservative be chosen as a moderator in the Presidential primary and general election primaries? I think I know the answer...Stupidity!

Looks like we will have to endure 3 slobbering Democratic liberal @ss kissers asking softball questions to the candidate they support. Steph will just be replaced by another biased A-hole.

The debates are televised on MSM and they can choose their moderators and the moderators can choose the "select" questions they ask.  Perhaps the candidates could debate on FOX or one of the cable networks...but what audience would they capture and the candidates have the right to refuse.

My bet is that Stephanopoulos will do an exclusive interview with Hillary in which they both come out looking like saints.  What better way to get viewers to tune in...Hillary's first "real" interview since she announced her campaign conducted by one of her media donors. 

[Lacarnut]

The debates are televised on MSM and they can choose their moderators and the moderators can choose the "select" questions they ask.  Perhaps the candidates could debate on FOX or one of the cable networks...but what audience would they capture and the candidates have the right to refuse.

My bet is that Stephanopoulos will do an exclusive interview with Hillary in which they both come out looking like saints.  What better way to get viewers to tune in...Hillary's first "real" interview since she announced her campaign conducted by one of her media donors.

More people would watch a debate on Fox than NBC. You are just guessing what audience they would capture on Fox. Plus, there would be fewer softball questions by biased liberal moderators. It is time for the Repub. candidate to demand equality in the debates. If they allow the media to smear them like what happened to Mc and Mitt, we will wind up with the Hildebeast.

Hitlery could not come out looking like a Saint if her life depended on it. Way too much baggage of lies and crooked dealings. Sounds like more of your stupidity.

[libertybele]

Lacarnut stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. To call me stupid because I have a difference of opinion is quite childish and quite liberal minded. I didn't call Hillary a saint rather than made a statement as to how I think many people will continue to perceive her.  She has been in the spotlight for well over a decade entwined in numerous scandals and corruption yet she has managed to survive politically.  I find it ridiculous that people rely on the debates in the first place to form an opinion on a candidate. The reason McCain and Mitt lost are because they are RINO's...just my opinion of course.

[SVPete]

More people would watch a debate on Fox than NBC. You are just guessing what audience they would capture on Fox. Plus, there would be fewer softball questions by biased liberal moderators. It is time for the Repub. candidate to demand equality in the debates. If they allow the media to smear them like what happened to Mc and Mitt, we will wind up with the Hildebeast.

McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 were the MSM's set-'em-up-and-knock-'em-down candidates. McCain especially; Romney, after MSM fave Huntsman never took off. And part of the MSM's "strategy" - too strong a word for what is more mindset collusion than an actual conspiracy - was that McCain especially and Romney to a substantial degree would alienate and fragment the R base.

Much as The Chill and Sanders/Warren have DU folk biting and devouring each other.

[Lacarnut]

Lacarnut stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. To call me stupid because I have a difference of opinion is quite childish and quite liberal minded. I didn't call Hillary a saint rather than made a statement as to how I think many people will continue to perceive her.  She has been in the spotlight for well over a decade entwined in numerous scandals and corruption yet she has managed to survive politically.  I find it ridiculous that people rely on the debates in the first place to form an opinion on a candidate. The reason McCain and Mitt lost are because they are RINO's...just my opinion of course.

Sure sounded like stupidity to me with your mushy post regarding Fox. Anyone that associates Hillary and Saints needs mental help. The chickens are coming to roost when Hitlery starts campaigning. She is a mean, egotistical bitch and the ugly side of her will rear its head.

Debates are very helpful in determining how the undecided will vote. That is just another one of your uninformed opinions.

Mc & Mitt lost the election on a number of fronts. Even though they are Rinos, they did not go after their opponets. They allowed the media and opponent to stereotype them. They ran a lousy campaign. Some of their  TV ads made little sense to the middle class and independent voters. They were outspend. In conclusion, the Democrats outsmarted them.   
 

[Belle]

I sure hope you don't mind me commenting on the last several posts.
In my opinion, referring to someone as stupid is indeed name calling.
Depending on sensitivities, it can make the other person feel bad.  I know, because I took quite a bit on another board before I left.
Sorry for the insult, libertybele.  & I will say to you, Lacarnut, there's never a reason for name calling.  Guess this hit a sore spot with me, & I'm not trying to make it more than it is.
This site does have an outlet for this with the anonymous reputation button. 

Back to the Presidential debates, I'll call myself uninformed.  So I looked it up, & ya'll probably already know about the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private firm, started in 1987 & founded by both parties.   It's non-profit, but the sponsors are "private contributions from foundations & corporations."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Hmmm, contributions, corporations...3 liberal moderators were chosen in 2012 (eg.  Jim Lehrer, Candy Crowley, Bob Schieffer).  Another liberal, Martha Raddatz, ABC, was the choice for the VP debate. Frank J. Fahrenkoph, Jr. is a co-chairman on the debate commission.  Mr. Fahrenkopf, Jr., was the chairman of the RNC from 1983 - 1989.  Conclusion, my opinion, liberalism has infected the republican party for a very long time.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79690.html

[libertybele]

It's ok Belle...I'm fairly new to this forum as well, and will take Lacaranut's comments with a grain of salt and surely will not give him any further consideration.  Usually those that call others names do so in order to try to make themselves feel important or superior; notice I said "try".  Besides, thankfully I don't know him and he doesn't know me.

I absolutely agree with you, liberalism has infected the Republican party for a very long time. There are but a handful of Congressmen worth a damn who are actually doing their jobs; the rest are in office to line their pockets.

[Big Dog]

A special message for our new members: You'll find that hall monitors, den mothers, Miss Manners types, and pearl clutchers are not well-recieved here; and you'll expend a lot of energy in vain, trying to change people who neither want nor need to change.

So, as Dr. Seuss would say, stay and play, or be on your way. Either way, have a nice day.

[Crazy Horse]

A special message for our new members: You'll find that hall monitors, den mothers, Miss Manners types, and pearl clutchers are not well-recieved here; and you'll expend a lot of energy in vain, trying to change people who neither want nor need to change.

So, as Dr. Seuss would say, stay and play, or be on your way. Either way, have a nice day.

That should be a disclaimer on the site.

[rich_t]

A special message for our new members: You'll find that hall monitors, den mothers, Miss Manners types, and pearl clutchers are not well-recieved here; and you'll expend a lot of energy in vain, trying to change people who neither want nor need to change.

So, as Dr. Seuss would say, stay and play, or be on your way. Either way, have a nice day.

Amen and then some.

[Belle]

I here ya, & accept the constructive criticism.
Time will tell if I'll fit in here.
Sorry if I came on too strong.

[Lacarnut]

It's ok Belle...I'm fairly new to this forum as well, and will take Lacaranut's comments with a grain of salt and surely will not give him any further consideration.  Usually those that call others names do so in order to try to make themselves feel important or superior; notice I said "try".  Besides, thankfully I don't know him and he doesn't know me.

Not sure whether you think I find your opinions stupid or calling thunder thighs a bitch. If the former, you might want to stick to the lounge or spa so that you do not get your little itty bitty feelings hurt.

Don't think you have a clue what it takes to win a political campaign whether the candidate is a Rhino or not. That equates to stupidity/ignorance/ill informed or whatever you want to call it. .     

[obumazombie]

That should be a disclaimer on the site.

Big Dog...NAILED IT !!!


While I'm at it, Snuffleupagus attempted another apology today...

On Sunday’s This Week, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos made a second on-air apology for failing to disclose that he donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation from 2012-2014. 
The ABC News anchor acknowledged “I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities including the Clinton Global Foundation.
Those donations were a matter of public record, but I should have made additional disclosures on air when we covered the foundation.”



Despite his admission that he should have disclosed the donations, Stephanopoulos maintained that they were purely for charitable purposes:

And I now believe that directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children, and protect the environment in poor countries.
I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.
I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.

Although the ABC anchor apologized for his actions, Stephanopoulos has a long history of abusing role as a journalist by promoting his former boss Bill Clinton and the work of his foundation:

Asserted that ‘there is hope’ donations to foundation will ‘lead to something’

Appeared on conference calls with Democratic strategists

Used his ABC News platform to run unofficial infomercials for Clinton Foundation

In his 1999 memoir, recounted his “love” for Hillary Clinton

Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook interned for Stephanopoulos; thanked in memoir

In addition, NewsBusters’ Geoff Dickens has compiled a list of ten times George Stephanopoulos sucked up to the Clintons on ABC’s airwaves.



See Stephanopoulos’ full apology below.

ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos

May 17, 2015

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Now I want to address some news you may have seen about me.
Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to  dozens of charities including the Clinton Global Foundation.

Those donations were a matter of public record, but I should have made additional disclosures on air when we covered the foundation.
And I now believe that directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children, and protect the environment in poor countries.

I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.

The one inescapable number that puts the lie to the claim by Snuffleupagus that he only contributed for charity purposes is that the Clinton Foundation he contributed to only outlays less than 10% of donations as charity.


full article...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2015/05/17/george-stephanopoulos-again-apologizes-clinton-foundation-donations#sthash.iQTu4yOQ.dpuf



edit add