Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  October 14, 2010
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Government/Politics

Persuasive Christine O'Donnell Pounds Pompous Chris Coons

Hopefully, the voters will realize that the moderators were manipulative and understand that they were because Coons needed their help.

Christine O'Donnell, Delaware's Republican Senate candidate, isn't a witch.

She's a Catholic ...and persecuted for her Catholic values.

Triple teamed by Chris Coons, her Democrat opponent, and the "moderators," CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Delaware First Media's Nancy Karibjanian (the "witch" on stage last night), O'Donnell nevertheless triumphed on substance and style in a handicap match.

National Review's Jim Geraghty titled his commentary on the debate last night "Did Delawareans Just Endure the Worst-Moderated Debate Ever?" (

The moderating was not merely bad, it was blatantly biased. If O'Donnell was not a lady, she would have lambasted Nasty Nancy and told Wily Wolf that he should ask his questions and she would answer them as she saw fit.

Geraghty, who does not have illusions about the admittedly imperfect O'Donnell, judged O'Donnell the winner too:

"If Delaware voters tuned in, expecting a bubble-headed, wacky ditz to ramble about masturbation and Satanism, they probably wondered where she was and why some woman who seemed to know about the issues was on stage instead. All of those cable television appearances paid off for O’Donnell. She was polished, serious, engaging and nothing like the caricature painted in recent months by Saturday Night Live, her old Politically Incorrect or MTV appearances, editorial cartoons, etc.

"I’m not inclined to agree with the positions of Democrat Chris Coons, but he struck me as terrible. I wondered if he felt a bit like Al Gore taking on Dan Quayle in 1992 or Joe Biden taking on Sarah Palin in 2008; the opponent was supposed to be a blithering idiot and anything less than a TKO would be a disappointment. But Coons seemed intent to play it safe, to the point where the local moderator, Schoolmarm McFavoritism, had to invite him to jump in twice. Several times he said he didn’t have the required time to answer the questions, and so he punted. His answers were pat, predictable, almost rote recitation of standard-issue Democratic talking points. As I said on Twitter, the generic ballot numbers in Delaware may be strangely relevant, since it seems Chris Coons is the Generic Democratic Candidate."

It was malevolent moderator bias, not imcompetence, that made the moderating a top contender for "worst moderated debate ever."

"Schoolmarm McFavoritism" personified liberal media bias.

The bearded Blitzer was not quite as bad, probably because he's male. O'Donnell is female and nasty Nancy was there to do the dirtiest work.


"The moderators were pretty awful. Both Blitzer and the local reporter seemed hell bent on… well, the metaphor burning a witch comes to mind.

"Yes, Christine O’Donnell has a lot of quirks, a lot of questionable decisions in her past and a lot of evasive answers about those bad decisions. But it was pretty clear that neither moderator was all that interested in holding Coons’ feet to the fire or interested in what he had to say at all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the better of the two, was hell-bent on pinning down O’Donnell’s view on evolution. And he was the better of the two. This was the moderators’ chance to play hardball with their designated Villain Du Jour, and the fact that CNN aired much of this debate live illustrates that the MSM doesn’t just want to see O’Donnell beaten; they want to see her… well, metaphorically burned at the stake in the town square for her audacity."

The moderators did not singe, much less incinerate, O'Donnell, but they kept the arrogant Coons from going up in smoke by steering the debate arbitrarily and arguing for him.

Geraghty, admittedly no an O'Donnell fan, concluded: "...she deserved better than this, and so did the voters. This was supposed to be a debate, not a show trial."

Delaware voters should realize that the moderators were manipulative and understand that they were because Coons needed their help.

Geraghty's bottom line: "Did this night help [O'Donnell]? When you’re 21 points down, you have to simultaneously build yourself up and tear down your opponent, and it’s tough to do simultaneously. In the end, she’s a very conservative candidate in a state that isn’t very conservative at all, and that’s going to be a tough sell."

True. But O'Donnell built herself up greatly...and she still has a bit of time to "tear down" Coons, by tying him to the radical agendas of President Obama and ACORN.

This isn't 2008 and liberal media bias is more obvious in Delaware now, especially as a result of the debate.

For O'Donnell, THAT'S GREAT!

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to,,, and and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is

Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2010 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2024 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved