Johnston's story begins by informing us that "Michael Tomasky had a tough gig Tuesday night in Carrboro." She is referring to long time Washington "journalist" Michael Tomasky who didn't argue against impeachment as much as that impeachment is merely impractical. He did not argue that impeachment was wrong, just that it isn't going to happen so why bother to worry about it all? So much for the contrary position.
Tomasky is a long time leftie writer who penned the books Left for Dead: The Life, Death, and Possible Resurrection of Progressive Politics in America as well as Hillary's Turn: Inside Her Improbable, Victorious Senate Campaign.
For the pro impeachment position, Tomasky faced Bruce Fein who is an impeachment advocate and lawyer. Fein is also a counsel for the Ron Paul campaign and a writer for Slate Magazine.
This supposed "debate" was put on by the Coalition for the Constitution who's main purpose is seemingly to promote the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
So, the scene was set for an event put on by impeachment advocates, with guests that favor impeachment and attended by fans of impeachment. Yet, our intrepid staff writer of the News & Observer treats it all as if it was a real debate that sadly didn't seem to change anyone's mind.
Well, DUH!
After discussing the speakers at this impeachment rally, Johnston seems shocked that no one changed their minds.
Few in the audience appeared persuaded by Tomasky's stance on the reality of the political situation.
"Not at all," said Marcie Ferris as the debate wrapped up. "I think Americans have been so beaten down by this administration. It's all this fear-mongering."
Well, of course not. They all had their minds set in favor of impeachment before they even went to this "debate." No one went there to hear the issues, they only went to figure out how to better advertise for impeachment as can be seen with this bit from the article...
Audience members asked Fein and Tomasky for ideas on how to get the American public more engaged in the impeachment topic. With many more Americans now tuned into the primaries, neither debater could come up with the golden ticket.
Johnston also quotes one of the event organizers who ridiculously claims that the debate had a "twist."
Hodding Carter III, a UNC-Chapel Hill professor of leadership and public policy, moderated the event. He pointed out that the debate had a twist, with a Republican arguing for impeachment and a Democrat arguing against.
Is this supposed to make it seem as if things were "fair and balanced"? Let's recall that the "Republican" in the debate has been a vocal pro impeachment guy all along and the "Democrat" in the debate was NOT arguing against impeachment, but only saying it was impractical. And, who could be surprised that a University professor was a ring leader for impeachment here?
This News & Observer article does not waste any time fully informing the reader that the whole "debate" was put on to further impeachment and was in no way a serious discussion on the merits of both the pro and con positions. Worse, there wasn't even a single soul in attendance that was truly against impeachment. This article is a perfect example of a media outlet trying to assist this impeachment group to promote their ideas.
