An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Sep 8, 2011 at 4:39am
Because of the time difference and because it took me all morning just to catch up on the local news, I haven't watched the debate. I have not yet read any of the punditry about it. But I just read the transcript, and followed it by reading Ricochet's GOP debate recap.
If you just look at the words in print, it's hard not to conclude that any member of Ricochet would be a better candidate. Try it as an experiment.
As soon as I get a chance, I'll watch it. Perhaps I'll revise my opinion. From the transcript, Gingrich seemed to me the winner. Perry seemed to be given twice the amount of time to talk as any other candidate, which is odd.
Does anyone know where I can find a full transcript of this debate, for comparison purposes? Peter?
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
If nominated, I shall run away and hide.
If elected, I shall produce a Kenyan birth certificiate (I hear they are easy to get).
Sep '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
You may want to check the Rico Live Chat transcript to see who the real debate winner was:
Bronzi.
Sep '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Whenever I watch or meet most politicians I am reminded of a line from Anthony Powells _Dance to the Music of Time_ novels wherein he describes the disengenous Sunderland Fairbrother as "turing on two hundred thousand volts of synthetic charm" The synthetic, game-show-host phoniness is utterly annoying and yet they all do it. I am mystified.
May '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Newt has taken on the role of Elder Statesman. Now that he's abandoned the idea of actually running for president, he sort of presides over the debate stage.
Perry was given so much time because it's his debut, and he is leading the polls, after all. So they're doing a little journalistic thing called vetting. They're sort of rusty at it, having forgotten to do it in 2008, what with all the hubbub and bustle and what-not.
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
I still haven't watched it, so I can't comment, and of the politicians on the stage, I've met only Gingrich in person. But I do wonder, increasingly, why so few people notice that politics and game shows are looking very much alike.
May '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Frankly, I am tired of people wanting me to decide who will be a good president based on responses in a debate.
I want a president who will make the right decisions on the issues. Haven't we already seen the consequences of choosing a leader/decider on the basis of debating skills and speeches?
Jul '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Why change what worked before?
Jun '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
I haven't watched the debate either and I won't. Nor will I read the transcript. Perry will win (barring a major scandal) because he appeals to the conservative base. Notice how the conservative banner was passed from Palin to Bachman and then on to Perry in quick succession. The base is looking for someone with true conservative principles. Perry has them, Romney doesn't. It's going to be Perry. Mind you, I'm deeply ambivalent about a nominating a professional politician of his ilk, but the alternative would be a marginal candidate like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.
Sep '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
I still haven't watched it, so I can't comment, and of the politicians on the stage, I've met only Gingrich in person. But I do wonder, increasingly, why so few people notice that politics and game shows are looking very much alike. · Sep 8 at 5:48am
Pat Sajak would make a wonderful candidate.
Aug '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
I still haven't watched it, so I can't comment, and of the politicians on the stage, I've met only Gingrich in person. But I do wonder, increasingly, why so few people notice that politics and game shows are looking very much alike. · Sep 8 at 5:48am
Pat Sajak might take that as a slap in the face.
Sep '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Pat Sajak on Ricochet is the candidate I'd vote for. Pat on Wheel of Fortune is doing his job and entertaining his audience...giving away prizes to the lucky and the relatively smarter, so that has more integrity than giving away goodies to your big contributors - just wait for the infrastructure bank - I expect that all of the candidates and the President present a much different private person and that they are reasonably intelligent and believe they are doing the right thing but somehow the system, or television or something has emerged into this spectacle that I find revolting, I wish I'd watched the Tsonga/Fish match at US Open. Sports has more integrity too.
May '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
It may be apocryphal, but the story is that those who listened to the first Nixon-Kennedy debate thought Nixon won hands down, while television viewers thought just the opposite.
Inflection, pauses, how at ease the candidate looked - it all matters. Transcripts don't cut it. Sorry, Claire, you gotta watch.
Apr '11
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Newt seemed the most comfortable in the debate. Very sharp.
Romney was his usual. above average, but not amazing.
Perry seemed awkward and his mannerisms were, dare I say, a little Bush-like. Specifically, the head bobbing while he made his points. Gotta avoid that.
Santorum said some good things but seemed kind of angry.
Ron Paul came off exasperated at times which made it too easy to dismiss what he was saying.
Huntsman had good contributions. He was calm and clear. The debate can only have helped him.
Cain was pretty good. I'm not sure what 9-9-9 is but I'd be willing to give it a try.
Bachmann did ok. A bit cautious, perhaps.
There can be only one winner, however and it was .... Marco Rubio. My apologies if someone, somewhere already made that joke, but its kind of true.
Apr '11
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
EJHill: It may be apocryphal, but the story is that those who listened to the first Nixon-Kennedy debate thought Nixon won hands down, while television viewers thought just the opposite.
Inflection, pauses, how at ease the candidate looked - it all matters. Transcripts don't cut it. Sorry, Claire, you gotta watch. · Sep 8 at 8:23am
Yeah, unfortunately television overemphasizes sometimes all the wrong things. I highly suspect there would be entirely different winners if there was a panel of radio listeners judging the same debate. Actually, that'd be a great experiment to run.
For now, television seems to rule the times. Me, I couldn't pick a winner. I think I stepped out when they flashed what numbers to call to vote for your favorite.
Also, for the record, I'd be a terrible candidate.
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
I'm watching now, and it's really amazing how huge the difference is between reading and seeing. Really makes me wonder. How I wish it were possible to watch the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Feb '11
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
There was a definite bias of time in favor of Perry and Romney. I didn't realize that Huntsman was there until I'd been watching a half an hour. (I came in late.) Perhaps this wasn't fair in the simple sense of equal time for everyone, but it makes some sense to give the front runners (who are attracting all the charges) more time to respond to them.
I tremble to think that people would even make a primary selection based on these types of events. Would that we had Lincoln/Douglas style debates, where candidates argued at length over a principal topic.
Jun '10
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
I still haven't watched it, so I can't comment, and of the politicians on the stage, I've met only Gingrich in person. But I do wonder, increasingly, why so few people notice that politics and game shows are looking very much alike. · Sep 8 at 5:48am
It's only a matter of time until we adopt a primary process where each week one candidate gets voted off the island.
Apr '11
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
ShellGamer: There was a definite bias of time in favor of Perry and Romney. I didn't realize that Huntsman was there until I'd been watching a half an hour. (I came in late.) Perhaps this wasn't fair in the simple sense of equal time for everyone, but it makes some sense to give the front runners (who are attracting all the charges) more time to respond to them.
I tremble to think that people would even make a primary selection based on these types of events. Would that we had Lincoln/Douglas style debates, where candidates argued at length over a principal topic. · Sep 8 at 11:01am
That's another good point. At present time, debates mostly seem focus on forming mildly defensible positions on a myriad of issues and hope you get time to explain and adequately defend such.
Now I want to see someone host a debate on a single issue (say, healthcare), and have it done on the radio. Or have two select audiences, a control group watching on television, and two groups for comparison study -- one listening on radio, the other watching live.
For science!
Feb '11
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
Joseph Stanko
It's only a matter of time until we adopt a primary process where each week one candidate gets voted off the island. · Sep 8 at 11:17am
I contend that this would be a better system than the current state primary/caucus system. Only people who really care would be left voting in the final rounds.
Feb '11
Re: An Odd Perspective on the Debate
C. U. Douglas
That's another good point. At present time, debates mostly seem focus on forming mildly defensible positions on a myriad of issues and hope you get time to explain and adequately defend such.
Now I want to see someone host a debate on a single issue (say, healthcare), and have it done on the radio. Or have two select audiences, a control group watching on television, and two groups for comparison study -- one listening on radio, the other watching live.
For science! · Sep 8 at 11:38am
This would also lead to a more educated voting population. As there could be no larger threat to the political establishment, it must never be permitted to happen.