We've now had 11 debates among the Republicans. So far, the only thing that this seemingly endless cycle has proven is that every candidate on the stage is deeply flawed.
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
These debates and the number of them are unprecedented. They are being held primarily by an openly biased media and are being used exclusively to butcher candidates in the eyes of the public so that they would be discredited by the time that they would potentially win a nomination and face the Socialist in Chief and his bloated war chest. It's time for the Replicants to stop playing in to their hands.
can you imagine how much the shallowness of Obama would have been shown had he been subjected to this much debating four yrs ago?
Not as much as you might think -- Obama and the rest of the D's saw more hanging pitches than in a beer league softball game. No hostile lines of questioning at all, really. The only time I recall Obama getting in trouble is when he said "oh, you're likeable enough, Senator" or somesuch in one of the debates. That was a very brief glimpse into his real personality.
I'm not really buying into the whole "they're making themselves vulnerable by playing in" line. The simple fact is that whoever the nominee is will get hammered unfairly by the press for months on end.
In addition, the press will try to divert attention from scandal, weak economy, unemployment, and other issues that reflect poorly on him (there's a long list.)
Given this tilted playing field, I still think Obama loses. The economy is a mess and there's just no hiding it. The stink of failure is all over this president and it will be his downfall.
I have to say, I somewhat agree with Anonymous on this.
I don't want to dismiss the importance of debates, but have we really learned anything of value about these candidates 11 debates later? Rather, we've treated these debates as little more than extensions of the horse-race of the campaign - who looked "in command"? Who flubbed a talking point? Who met/beat/failed "expectations"? It's reality TV, except on a reality TV show, we'd be down to a handful of contestants.
It's altered our perception of the race itself. Who needs to raise money, recruit volunteers, come out with detailed solutions when you can simply excel at 2 hrs of debate and climb the polls. Gingrinch is prove enough of this problem as the voters have made a candidate with no remaining organization, mountains of campaign debt, and a luggage car full of baggage the co-frontrunner based on his ability to debate.
I'd give anything to see just one candidate, one time, announce they were fed up with these endless debates where we learn nothing and walk off the stage. But of course, it'll never happen.
I'd give anything to see just one candidate, one time, announce they were fed up with these endless debates where we learn nothing and walk off the stage. But of course, it'll never happen.
Yep, FR. That would be best.
Gingrinch is prove enough of this problem as the voters have made a candidate with no remaining organization, mountains of campaign debt, and a luggage car full of baggage the co-frontrunner based on his ability to debate.
I'd argue that your conclusion is why Gingrich is doing well. Republicans are too damned polite to walk off the stage, but Gingrich's traction comes precisely because he's the one candidate who is most willing to call attention to the premises of the questions he gets from the moderators. Conservatives, at least the ones I talk to, are just tired of the constant miasma of liberalspeak that coats every aspect of our public discourse. Gingrich has, to his credit, called that sort of thing out. The problem is that it's primarily an emotional response and can't be sustained. And Newt has more baggage than American Tourister.
OK, every candidate is deeply flawed, and yet infinitely less flawed than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania. Heck, even "generic Republican" would be better than Obama, and she's not running.
7 comments:
These debates and the number of them are unprecedented. They are being held primarily by an openly biased media and are being used exclusively to butcher candidates in the eyes of the public so that they would be discredited by the time that they would potentially win a nomination and face the Socialist in Chief and his bloated war chest. It's time for the Replicants to stop playing in to their hands.
can you imagine how much the shallowness of Obama would have been shown had he been subjected to this much debating four yrs ago?
can you imagine how much the shallowness of Obama would have been shown had he been subjected to this much debating four yrs ago?
Not as much as you might think -- Obama and the rest of the D's saw more hanging pitches than in a beer league softball game. No hostile lines of questioning at all, really. The only time I recall Obama getting in trouble is when he said "oh, you're likeable enough, Senator" or somesuch in one of the debates. That was a very brief glimpse into his real personality.
I'm not really buying into the whole "they're making themselves vulnerable by playing in" line. The simple fact is that whoever the nominee is will get hammered unfairly by the press for months on end.
In addition, the press will try to divert attention from scandal, weak economy, unemployment, and other issues that reflect poorly on him (there's a long list.)
Given this tilted playing field, I still think Obama loses. The economy is a mess and there's just no hiding it. The stink of failure is all over this president and it will be his downfall.
I have to say, I somewhat agree with Anonymous on this.
I don't want to dismiss the importance of debates, but have we really learned anything of value about these candidates 11 debates later? Rather, we've treated these debates as little more than extensions of the horse-race of the campaign - who looked "in command"? Who flubbed a talking point? Who met/beat/failed "expectations"? It's reality TV, except on a reality TV show, we'd be down to a handful of contestants.
It's altered our perception of the race itself. Who needs to raise money, recruit volunteers, come out with detailed solutions when you can simply excel at 2 hrs of debate and climb the polls. Gingrinch is prove enough of this problem as the voters have made a candidate with no remaining organization, mountains of campaign debt, and a luggage car full of baggage the co-frontrunner based on his ability to debate.
I'd give anything to see just one candidate, one time, announce they were fed up with these endless debates where we learn nothing and walk off the stage. But of course, it'll never happen.
I'd give anything to see just one candidate, one time, announce they were fed up with these endless debates where we learn nothing and walk off the stage. But of course, it'll never happen.
Yep, FR. That would be best.
Gingrinch is prove enough of this problem as the voters have made a candidate with no remaining organization, mountains of campaign debt, and a luggage car full of baggage the co-frontrunner based on his ability to debate.
I'd argue that your conclusion is why Gingrich is doing well. Republicans are too damned polite to walk off the stage, but Gingrich's traction comes precisely because he's the one candidate who is most willing to call attention to the premises of the questions he gets from the moderators. Conservatives, at least the ones I talk to, are just tired of the constant miasma of liberalspeak that coats every aspect of our public discourse. Gingrich has, to his credit, called that sort of thing out. The problem is that it's primarily an emotional response and can't be sustained. And Newt has more baggage than American Tourister.
OK, every candidate is deeply flawed, and yet infinitely less flawed than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania. Heck, even "generic Republican" would be better than Obama, and she's not running.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment