Posted on 10/12/2011 5:47:42 AM PDT by xzins
Last night's Meet the Media Question and Answer Session with Bloomberg.com will not get rave reviews.
First, Limited access to this Q&A was insured by Bloomberg's minor presence on TV and Radio. While there was also access via the internet (buffering....buffering), it seems a safe bet to assume that many went without seeing this additional attempt by the media to determine the Republican nominee for POTUS.
The overall Q&A itself was entirely predictable. Those who've seen the other Q&As could have pre-scripted this one. There were no surprising questions, answers, or techniques employed. Absolutely nothing jumped out. Some were probably sad they made the effort to connect via the internet. The diet for the evening was the standard list of bullets already expected from each candidate.
With no new substance to discuss, we are left to talk about performance -- as if this were Oscar night and actors were gushing over their producers and directors.
Oscars go to: Cain, Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum.
AverageOscars go to: Perry, Huntsman, Paul, and Bachmann.
FailureOscars go to: Bloomberg and this boring rehash.
Translating the above goes as follows. Oscar winners held their own. Gingrich, as usual, did better than the others. Cain was clearly next in line followed by the "clear enunciation award" shared between Romney and a feisty Santorum.
All the other candidates kept to their points and made no mistakes.
Dear Mayor Bloomberg....this was such a disappointment. They'll not be naming Oscar night after you any time soon.
this blogger seems to like Gingrich
Exactly why I never watch this stuff.
Incidentally, at this point,unless someone catches Cain in bed with a four year old boy, he has my vote.
Cain did well. He can win my vote if he clears some things up first.
Gingrich is the smartest guy with the best ideas, but last night’s dullness was restricting even to him.
We put entirely too much emphasis on ‘performance’ at these debates. Romney was clearly the best prepared, sharpest and most articulate ‘debater’ on that stage last night. Hands down! But, is that who we want as our nominee???? God spare us from that disaster!
Cain was flat out wrong in his response to Paul about the fed reserve. That concerns me. I am no fan of Paul but he was right about the quotes. Not going to help Herman.
We may get stuck with Mitt the Mormon.
“...last night’s dullness was restricting...”
Right!
I believe that kind of stage managing of debates is thoroughly deliberate and calculated with conscious effort and precision. The debates display the predictably biased MSM grandstanding and their tendency show biz theatrics. This is how the MSM influences choices which should be made in a way completely detached from the MSM preferences and tactics.
That’s why I don’t (can’t) watch them. You are really watching ‘how the MSM presents debates 101’, and NOT learning about candidates.
Some candidates bear this kind of, by now, institutionalized obfuscation better than others.
Until this beauty contest has run its course, I don’t watch.
Which chairman from the last 40 years would you have picked? The question limited the answer to choosing the least of the worst.
I’d disagree about Romney being the best debater. Gingrich’s stuff about frank and dodd
The problem with questions like that is that none of the other candidates have had to answer it. Kind of like everyone bashing Cain's tax plan when they haven't put forward anything more than vague, feel good talking points themselves. Paul stumbled when asked to articulate who he would appoint to the Fed or what he'd do about it and the Fed has been his flagship issue for 30 years.
Burns served as Fed Chairman from February 1970 until the end of January 1978. He has a reputation of having been overly influenced by political pressure in his monetary policy decisions during his time as Chairman[2] and for supporting the policy, widely accepted in political and economic circles at the time, that Fed action should try to maintain an unemployment rate of around 4 percent.
Volcker’s Fed elicited the strongest political attacks and most widespread protests in the history of the Federal Reserve (unlike any protests experienced since 1922), due to the effects of the high interest rates on the construction and farming sectors, culminating in indebted farmers driving their tractors onto C Street NW and blockading the Eccles Building.[13]
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz said about him in an interview:
Paul Volcker, the previous Fed Chairman known for keeping inflation under control, was fired because the Reagan administration didn’t believe he was an adequate de-regulator. (Paul’s favorite for some reason.)
The author of two bubble's in the last 20 years.
No one is watching these non-debates. The clips that Fox showed this morning were pitiful. The Sominex company should sue the GOP for unfair competition.
That's part of my point. Anyone who watched and was interested in substance would agree with you. But substance is NOT what these 'debates' are about. That's why I say that Romney won. Too many people are focused on looks and style, even here on FR.
I would add Gingrich to your tagline. :>)
I would like a debate where the same question was asked of each candidate. Just go down the line. No counter responses, or cross talk. Next question- start with a different person and procede down the line.
Simplistic, I know, but a chance to see comparisons on views.
Been thinking about it! Whoever the next President is I hope he finds a place for Newt where he can be a real asset! Unless, of course, Newt is the next President.
I have no doubt that watching a Gingrich/Obama debate would be like watching Cheney dismantle John Edwards.
That was probably the most fun debate I’ve watched in my entire life of watching politics.
I like your idea...I'd love to see something like that.
The loser was clearly Karen Tumulty, when she attempted to get Bachmann and Gingrich to admit that “Wall Street” caused the credit meltdown. Bachmann clearly articulated the case that government was at fault, a hard-hit, ground-rule double, perhaps, then Gingrich hit a homer by mentioning “jail”, “Barney Frank”, and “Chris Dodd” in the same sentence.
Two runs.
It’s a shame that statistically no one watched this, as for some, it may have been the first time they heard that someone could be at fault other than Wall Street.
This is why I think we have a strong field, not a weak one.
Yes, the 9-9-9 plan may be flawed, but it was talked about.
All night.
This can only be good for the battlefield prep stage of the war we now find ourselves in to save capitalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.