Posted on 01/10/2012 6:12:29 AM PST by IbJensen
Although no genius, ABC commentator and former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos is not stupid. Nevertheless, he seemed like an outright doofus (or yahoo!) as host of the ABC/Yahoo New Hampshire debate on Saturday when he kept pressing Mitt Romney on the constitutionality, of all things, contraceptives.
No, that wasn’t an episode of Saturday Night Live or Fawlty Towers. It was a typical mainstream media operative, unable to control his bias, desperately seeking to expose the Republican frontrunner in some manner or to create some kind of gaffe that would damage him for the general election.
Romney, to his credit, treated the gotcha question with the proper amount of amused disdain, allowing Stephanopoulos to dig a yet bigger hole for himself and turning the audience in the candidate’s favor.
In this essentially meaningless exchange, Stephanopoulos became the poster boy for the whole debate process in which a long line of Republican candidates have paraded themselves for inspection in front of panel after panel of largely liberal media interlocutors.
Fortunately for the Republicans, those interlocutors haven’t been very good at what they do. Part of the reason is that liberal (Keynesian) economics is for all intents and purposes defunct and everybody knows that — so those liberal journalists don’t really have anywhere to go on the key issue of the campaign. Another reason may be that they are not as skilled as we, or they, think they are. A third may be that the Republicans were inflicting sufficient wounds all by themselves.
Still, the entire summa of now fifteen debates has yielded little of substance or depth. We learned that Rick Perry isn’t very good at debating (but has gotten somewhat better), that Newt Gingrich is very good at debating (but allows his thin skin to make him worse), that Ron Paul has adamant supporters and doesn’t worry about the mullahs (no surprise), that Rick Santorum is socially conservative and does worry about the mullahs (again no surprise) and that Romney makes a relatively unflappable frontrunner (probably a good trait for a president).
I suppose these somewhat minor observations were worth three, possibly four, debates. In essence, the system is in need of serious rethinking.
This is especially true for the general election. I have a recommendation — shamelessly stolen from Newt Gingrich.
Let’s put an end to the interlocutors. We don’t need media filters — left, right or center. I am not interested in Jane Pauley. I am not interested in Chris Wallace. I get to see plenty of them. I am not interested either in supposedly random questions chosen (by whom?) from Facebook or Twitter.
I am interested in the candidates and what they have to say to each other — mano-a-mano — in the style of Lincoln and Douglas.
They should be given a topic for the debate (entitlements, Iran, whatever) and be set free to examine it. Those issues can be discussed at length and in more depth without the interference of media personalities who, besides being biased one way or the other, are often more interested in the promotion of themselves or their companies.
The debaters further would not be able to hide behind their media allies, overt or covert. If the president or his Republican adversary attempts to monopolize the conversation, blows up emotionally, resorts to nasty ad hominems or simply engages in absurd argumentation, it would be exposed for all to see. Ideas and the ability to express them would be on display.
Some say the debating skills of a president are not important. While I agree they may be overemphasized, they are still significant. You have to communicate well to achieve your goals. Whatever you may think of their polices, it’s no accident two of the most successful presidents of the Twentieth Century were exceptional communicators — Ronald Reagan and FDR.
In the Lincoln-Douglas approach, their debating and thinking skills would be tested, not to mention their ideologies. And it would be great theater — far more interesting than the pabulum we have been recently served.
I doubt Barack Obama will have the guts to do it. He is an utterly conventional man who has done nothing remotely imaginative while in office that I can think of. Also, his chief strategy seems to be to demonize the Republicans, a more daunting task if you deal with one face to face
But if it does happen, I am relatively certain of one thing. There is one topic that if either party brings it up, he will be deemed a fool: contraceptives.
Stuffingenvelopes is a little twerp that appealed only to reprobates like Billy Goat Clinton. He is an obnoxious little twit!
What goes on in the public debates is just feed material for blogs, “news” items, mentions by DJs on radio, and so forth.
The pervasive immersive chanting can be more effective in changing people’s minds.
Consider the effectiveness of the constant mutter of “it’s Bush’s Fault” that was a constant factor on almost all media when he was President.
Stefi probably had instructions to hammer the point because other people had plans for the resulting material, no matter how stupid it seemed at the time.
He had quotes from Romney on both sides of that issue, so whichever way Mitt responded, he was going to jump on him with his opposite
But Stephie was too ham-handed in the attempt, bringing up an issue of such stunning irrelevance Romney was unable to fathom why he would ask something so ridiculous, and so didn't jump on the bait.
Meantime; for years now; the Lincoln-Douglas has been held as a standard. And for all that; nothing has changed. We seemed doomed to suffer the insufferable. . .
I thought Romney did very well with the question too. Newt also does a nice job of making a fool out of the clowns running these “debates”.
The GOP hardly needed MSNBC to host a debate. Putting candidates through that impresses NO ONE and just delights leftists. There have been way too many debates already and we're just covering the same ground over and over again. Those who want more and more debates are usually those whose candidates are failing and want something/anything to stick to the front-runners. I didn't learn a single new thing in last weekend's debates.
The public quickly grew sick and tired of seeing Obama's ugly mug on their televisions every day. Are we going to wear out all the GOP candidates too? We're well on our way.
(Just part of the plan. . .and reprehensible response as are their goals.)
Its about social issues,stupid. I know you probably thought it was about the economy or jobs or restoring America to greatness.
They should go to a town hall format...registered GOP voters only ...let them ask the questions
We saw how that worked out for Anthony Comstock.
Chris Wallace was getting on my nerves during the Fox debate. Most of these moderators seem like they think they need to show off their intelligence in the way they craft the question, and the questions become unnecessarily long.
I’m sure the WH sent Steffie a new pair of” Alice in Wonderland” knee pads!
Steffy was trying to marginalize Rick Santorum by using Romney. When Santorum objected loudly to the premise of the question, Steffy, lifted his finger to stop him saying, “I know, I know, just a minute...” Rick didn’t need to respond because Romney, to his credit, didn’t take the bait and turned it back on Steffy.
It was so ridiculous.
excellent idea! No same-day registrations either. This is similar to the only worthy debate (IMHO) which was the one co-sponsored by one of the TEA Party groups.
It wasn’t about Romney; it was about Santorum. Steffy was using Romney to set up Santorum.
It was an, as the saying goes, EPIC FAIL.
I know that no state wants to do it, but would a particular state be constitutionally (U.S) precluded from passing such a law? If so, where in the constitution? Could they ban abortion? Homosexuality? Gay marriage? How is contraception different, under our constitution? Seems like a silly premise, but it is constitutionally interesting. Thoughts?
Right-O!
Wallace is a bloviator whose questions are somewhat longer than the 60 seconds a debater has to respond.
His smarmy question to the honorable Michelle Bachmann “Are you a flake?” Was most disreputable and completely destroyed forever any regard I held for him.
No questions regarding anything of substance and importance to the future of this nation.
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.