Baby please! They’re waiting for us on the Lido deck. Don’t make a scene…

This is hilarious.

Stephen Spruiell and Andy McCarthy bitching each other out at the Corner:

In somewhat abbreviated form: you start, Stephen:

I also have to say that, for all the flak we gave her, Gwen Ifill did a good job. Of course, it’s impossible to know how much said flak put her on notice and influenced the tone of her questions. I don’t think this debate was very substantive, but it wasn’t a fiasco either.

Andy, you have something to say?

Steve, c’mon. Ifill did not do a good job. She asked straightforward questions and didn’t get in the way of the answers. If that satisfies you, I guess that’s fine. But it was an unmitigated disgrace for her to be presiding — and she is smart enough to know that, so not stepping aside was a culpable act. Will you be there when the book comes out on inauguration day, commenting, as Ifill rakes it in, that maybe she didn’t do such a great job?

And we didn’t give her flak. We pointed out the existence of a conflict of interest so blatant no MSM operative would have let anyone other than one of their own get away with it.

Tomorrow, the press will gleefully note that "even Stephen Spruiell of National Review conceded that ‘Gwen Ifill did a good job.’" And those of us who argued that the job was about more than asking questions will be painted as hysterions. I don’t expect anything different from Ifill’s pals, but do we have to help them?

Stephen:

Andy, I’ve seen nearly all the debates this year, and I’ve heard some moderators ask some astoundingly bad questions. But Ifill didn’t ask any obviously loaded, leading or "gotcha" type questions, and all in all she played it pretty fair. I agree that her behavior leading up to the debate — not informing the debate commission about her book, playing the race card against her critics — was appalling, and I wrote as much, and even the Columbia Journalism Review agreed that she had a conflict of interest. I agree with you on that point. And you agree with me that she asked straightforward questions. So what do we disagree about?

Andy:

Well, Steve, we disagree that she did a good job.  You said she did, I think she did an appalling job.  The job is about more than the asking of the questions.  And the overall context here, which you don’t mention, is that the media is in the tank for Obama. 

By putting your blinders on, focusing only on tonight’s Q&A, and pronouncing "job well done, Gwen," you have discredited those of us who’ve protested the unfairness of this Obamedia dominated process in which a Lefty journalist with a financial stake in the outcome of the election was permitted to pose as an objective moderator.  (I’m surprised to have to remind you of this, but the applicable standard is appearance of impropriety — we are not supposed to have to judge Ifill by her line-by-line performance; her stake in the outcome means bias is presumed.) 

By discrediting the Ifill critics as overwrought (which is how, I assume you know, your assessment will be taken), you undermine the argument that the mainstream press is pulling for (and slanting its coverage toward) Obama.  You thus give the media the cover they crave as they continue to engage in brazenly biased reporting — you will be cited henceforth as the wise, reasonable conservative who acknowledges that the press is doing a good job and that those nutty, reactionary right-wingers have nothing to complain about.

Other than that, yes, we’re in complete agreement.

Stephen:

For Pete’s sake, Andy, I just created a feature for the Media Blog called "In the Tank," and Gwen Ifill was our inaugural inductee! You’re acting like I’m out to embarrass Ifill’s critics, when I’m one of those critics. I’m not trying to undermine any of the points you, I, or anyone else made about Ifill’s conduct prior to tonight’s debate. I just commented on her performance as moderator, which was probably influenced (I wrote) by our criticism of her in-the-tankness. Sheesh. 

Andy:

That’s great, Steve.  I’m sure the media will call you first to make sure they’re accurately representing what you were "trying to" do before they quote you.  After all, when it gets down to brass tacks, they really do a good job.

Oh, snap!

 I know a couple of fellas who won’t be sharing a berth, much less a cabin, on the upcoming NRO cruise.