Too Many Debates?
This year's primary debate schedule is packed. We've already seen five debates with the full field, and there are more than a dozen remaining. Are we risking the destruction of our own candidates through this? Last night's contest devolved at points into dog fights. No one came out ahead in those exchanges. Is this like practicing your first string offense against your first string defense until both are too beaten and bruised to perform effectively during a game against the real opponent? I fear we are hurting our candidates rather than training them.
In today's world with multiple lines of communication, I do not see the debates as important as they once were. We can all receive as much exposure to the candidates as we want through the internet and the 24/7 news channels. The debates are not the only national exposure the candidates receive as was the case in the past. The format of the debates is utterly useless for conveying the policy positions of the candidates, and it actually diminishes their ability to convey the more important philosophical foundations of those positions. Are these debates helping or hurting our cause? Do they diminish our ability to select the best candidate to represent us in the general election?
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Too Many Debates?
I think they're great. They weed out the dummies and hone the real contenders. I know you're a Perry fan and that he seems to be diminished with each debate. I think it's better to find out now, though, if a candidate can't handle himself in this forum. Perry's had ample time and opportunity to improve and show he can compete on this stage, unfortunately he doesn't seem up to it.
My only gripe with the debates is that its time to start weeding out the also rans. As far as I'm concerned the only people that belong in these debates anymore are Romney, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich. And if I'm honest, the only two who really deserve to be up there are Romney and Gingrich. They're the only two who consistently demonstrate real command of the issues and an understanding of what the presidency requires.
So I don't think the debates are weakening the candidates, I just think they might start to be a waste of time until the field winnows down and the questioning can focus more exclusively on the people who deserve to be there.
Edited on Oct 19, 2011 at 6:38amMay '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
I'm all in favor of lots of debates. Besides helping us get to know the candidates and their respective strengths and weaknesses, they are giving our side a lot of practice for the general.
I do wish there were more creativity and variety in the formats, however. I'd much rather see, for instance, (at least once we're down to fewer contenders) each candidate given a good amount of time--like 10 minutes--to lay out his vision and his case for his candidacy, and then the others given a good amount of time for a response.
The moderator should be much less visible.
Dec '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
Yes, I'm a Perry guy, but that's a nominal label at this point. He gave me some hope last night right before he saved a few more pretzels for the gas jets. I prefer his positions to the others by a wide margin, but he's losing me on delivery. It's like watching the most perfect golf swing ever whiff on the drive.
If the only information we had was the debates Newt would be at 80% in the polls. He is the only one up there with command of the sound bite format. However, we know he's a loose cannon personally. Mitt is exactly the opposite. He is the very definition of personal discipline but his positions are mounted on a weather vane. Why can't we have the problem the dems had last time around, picking between our two dream candidates?
May '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
As for me, I couldn't stand Newt last night. I only saw the second half of the debate. I thought he came across as insufferably self-satisfied--as if all his answers are designed not to answer the questions but to display his superior knowledge and expertise and his above-the-fray greatness in debate.
I notice that whenever he doesn't want to take a stand (like on Yucca Mountain), he talks about the need for "study" and "a national conversation".
Ron Paul was great, and exactly right, on that point, though I had never given the issue much thought before.
Jan '11
Re: Too Many Debates?
I think the weather vane charge against Romney has lost a lot of its sting. He's been consistent on his positions since he first started running for president six years ago. He's clearly laid out what he wants to do and I don't think he's in any position to renege on any promises he's made. The fact is that his platform is perfectly conservative and many ways more conservative than Perry's. Yes, I wish he hadn't been so malleable in his political past. But I think he actually has a good record of following through on what he campaigns on. I also think that most of the domestic stuff is going to be driven and developed in collaboration with Congress and as long as we give the next president a strongly conservative legislature, we will get the results we want. If we don't vote in a conservative enough Congress, it doesn't matter how died-in-the-wool conservative our president is, he won't succeed. Congress is absolute key on the domestic agenda.
Dec '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
I think you've got a very valid point about Newt. It is possible to become so right that you go wrong. I see the same thing with my kids, actually. The older one is very smart, but sometimes hearing her explain things makes the little one scream.
Aug '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
KP - I definitely believe the debate format encourages a bitter sort of sparring, which in turn, is providing ammunition for the debates to come with Obama. It's like NASCAR running a race on a track designed to cause crashes.
Dec '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
The problem with Romney isn't what his positions are, they're solid enough, or how long he's held them, they've been consisten since he started running for president; rather, the problem is why he holds them. He doesn't hold them because of who he is. He holds them because of the job he wants. It almost seems like falsifying a resume.
Jan '11
Re: Too Many Debates?
That doesn't make sense. If he were only driven by wanting the job, he wouldn't have started his political career as a Republican in Massachusetts.
Edited on Oct 19, 2011 at 7:32amDec '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
BThompson
That doesn't make sense. If he were only driven by wanting the job, it wouldn't make any sense for him to start his political career as a Republican in Massachusetts. · Oct 19 at 7:26am
More importantly, how on earth did he get elected as governor of Mass. as a Republican? Take any set of generally acceptable conservative positions to Mass. and the voters there will act like a plague ridden rat was dropped in the middle of the table at a dinner party.
Re: Too Many Debates?
BThompson
That doesn't make sense. If he were only driven by wanting the job, he wouldn't have started his political career as a Republican in Massachusetts. · Oct 19 at 7:26am
Edited on Oct 19 at 07:32 am
I am not so sure about that. The Massachusetts Republican Party is an empty shell -- which means that a well-funded guy can get the senatorial or gubernatorial nomination fairly easily. Moreover, Massachusetts often elects Republican governors and occasional elects Republican Senators.
May '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
BThompson
That doesn't make sense. If he were only driven by wanting the job, he wouldn't have started his political career as a Republican in Massachusetts. · Oct 19 at 7:26am
Edited on Oct 19 at 07:32 am
He would if he were a Rockefeller Republican...oh wait...
Dec '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
But back to the original topic, regardless of who you support, these debates seem to be more damaging than helpful. The dems now know exactly how to fluster Romney, they know that any specific foreign policy issue will cause Cain to look like the pizza delivery guy trying to make change, and they know that Perry can't remain cogent for more than 30 minutes. The Obama war machine is taking notes and will be prepared to eviscerate whoever we send against him. Our fighter will step into one ring directly from another while the opposition has done nothing to tire themselves other than watching the fight films. As far as being helpful for us, who can name any policy position espoused from last night's debate? We can't. The circus atmosphere completely overshadowed any substance that might have accidentally found its way into the debate.
Mar '11
Re: Too Many Debates?
As Dick Morris has pointed out, the debates are a way for candidates with less money to compete with those with the big bucks - the rise of Mr Cain is mostly because of the debates. So that is a good thing - the more debates, the better, to see how the candidates fare when they are under attack - useful preparation for facing Mr Alinksy, err, I mean, Mr Obama.
Also, I think Mr Cain is now more aware of the problems with his 999 plan, specifically the last 9, so hopefully that will prompt him to come up with something better. Democracy in action, even though the format is less than ideal.
Edited on Oct 19, 2011 at 7:46amJan '11
Re: Too Many Debates?
Well, you can all surmise what you will about who the true Mitt Romney is. It doesn't really matter to me. As I've said before, I subscribe to Uncle Milton's adage that you don't look for the right person to elect, you create the political environment so that even the wrong person does the right thing. Right person or wrong person, without a strong congress it doesn't matter who gets elected president as far as the domestic agenda goes. Strong conservatives should be looking to solve our fiscal and economic woes through congress and electing a president who seems like he can work with congress and who has strong and good instincts on foreign policy and defense. That doesn't describe Herman Cain, so sorry Cainiacs, you are making a horrible mistake backing that man. Of the rest there really is only Perry, Newt, and Romney.
Of those Romney is the most electable, maybe the only electable one, and therefore he is the one to back. People need to stop letting Romney's past political maneuvering get to them so much it clouds their judgement and makes them run blindly or in denial to someone else who will be an abject failure. That was how Obama got elected after all. The country was mad and fed up with Bush so it engaged in all sorts of fantasies and ignored it's own eyes about Obama. We are all paying the price now, and Republicans and conservatives shouldn't make the same mistake this time around.
Edited on Oct 19, 2011 at 7:53amJun '11
Re: Too Many Debates?
"Too many debates?"
I stopped watching them some time ago. It's too dispiriting to watch Republicans who want to be POTUS going before the likes of Brian Williams, Charlie Rose or this Cooper chap. (Now if they show up on Intentional Talk on the MLB channel I'll give them a quick look see.)
They can't cancel this multi-network "Republican Debate" program fast enough. My Mother The Car was a better show and a lot less damaging to the nation.
Re: Too Many Debates?
I'm more than sympathetic to the argument that these debates are harmful (was thinking the same last night) but I don't have a problem with these things. They either make candidates aware of their weaknesses with enough time to prepare for the real challenge or they alert primary voters to who is unacceptable. That's fine by me.
Mar '11
Re: Too Many Debates?
I was happy to see the myth of Romney's suavity and unflappability exploded (finally!). From Byron York's story:
Romney tried to laugh it off and to deny the story. "I don't think I've ever hired an illegal in my life," he said.. . .Romney tried to explain, but Perry kept pushing,
"Rick, again, Rick, I'm speaking," Romney said. "I'm speaking, I'm speaking, I'm speaking. You get 30 seconds. This is the way the rules work here…Anderson?"
By the time Romney appealed to CNN moderator Anderson Cooper for help, Romney seemed flustered, almost frantic. When Perry finally told Romney to "have at it," Romney explained that he had hired a company to do lawn work and had no idea the company hired illegals until it was reported in the paper. But in the course of that explanation, Romney dropped his guard for a moment and uttered a few words he will likely hear again in the coming campaign.
"We went to the company, and we said, 'Look, you can't have any illegals working on our property,'" Romney said. "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals."
Jul '11
Re: Too Many Debates?
Perhaps we can alter the format of any future debates to more of a Survivor style. You know, vote someone off the island at the end of every debate. Best thing about this method is that if you make self-elimination valid, then you can throw out Huntsman effective yesterday!
-E
Dec '10
Re: Too Many Debates?
I picked up on that, too, and commented about it in the chat. Hiring illegals was bad only because of the political consequences and not because it's, you know, wrong? It made Mitt look very single issue, the issue being getting himself elected. Right or wrong it vindicated my feelings about him.