George Must Go!

When dealing George Stephanopoulos, conservatives should simply follow the acronym WWDD (What Would Democrats Do?). If Megyn Kelly had provided a softball interview of Jeb Bush and we found out that she contributed to the Bush Foundation, how quickly would the left demand Fox fire Kelly or would Fox fire Kelly if not suspend her? Even MSNBC suspended Keith Olberman for contributing to leftist candidates even though it was recognized that he was partisan and his show pushed leftist ideals.

Stephanopoulos should be suspended if not fired. At worst, he should no longer be the political journalist at ABC and resign as the host of “This Week” while having the status as liberal pundit. He can no longer be trusted as a journalist. Stephanopoulos interviewed Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton’s Cash, and played the inquisitor in defending the Clinton Foundation. Unknown to the viewer, George Stephanopoulos contributed to the Clinton Foundation and participated in the Clinton Foundation's functions. Stephanopoulos also worked for the Clinton’s Administration in the 1990’s; therefore, viewers weren’t informed of Stephanopoulos' present involvement with the Clintons and many voters may not have been aware or remembered Stephanopoulos’ role in the Clinton Administration.

During the interview, Stephanopoulos acted as if he was a Clinton operative as opposed to a serious journalist, but we now know he is a Clinton operative with a byline. If nothing else, we see the corruption of much of what we call mainstream media.

ABC's failure to act is just another example how much of the media are simply operating as front group for the political left as they allowed a mealy mouth apology from Stephanopoulos. (He stated that he would not participate in Republican debates. Of course why the Republicans would even consider a former Clinton’s operative to monitor their debate is incredulous but that is another story.) Which brings us back to the Clintons. A recent study on why corrupt politicians get elected concluded that less informed voters are found significantly vote for incumbents accused of corruption to clean incumbents more often than their well-informed counterparts. This explains the Clinton’s strategy of not meeting with the media. The less Hillary speaks to the issue, the more likely she can get the “less informed” voters to support her. This strategy is aided by the fact that the majority of the media are leftist leaning and are less likely to report Clinton’s weakness and Stephanopoulos is a prime example of that.

Hotair noted about a recent poll, “The majority of Democratic poll respondents also claimed that they had heard nothing – nothing at all – about the scandals involving the former secretary of state that have dominated coverage of her candidacy.” So how do voters of a major political party not even know that their leading candidate’s foundation has been involved in possible scandal? Could it be the news organization that they depend upon is not reporting this? And with reporters like Stephanopoulos considered a serious journalist, how could the average American not be well informed? So why is Stephanopoulos still on the air?