Quantcast
Opinion

Readers' forum: Presidential debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Sept. 10, 2011 10:27 p.m.

    Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani were candidates four years ago. The debate in question with this letter writer took place last week. At least that was the one I saw. I do wish Fred was running again.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Sept. 10, 2011 11:05 a.m.

    political "debates" = political "pattycake".

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 11:06 p.m.

    Unlike the rest of the GOP blockheads, Paul was right, so right, about the Iraq war. If there is one good thing about the tea party it is that they driven the neocon cranks into the background.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 5:31 p.m.

    I have watched every debate so far and none of them have given equal time to each candidate. While I agree that it is not fair, I can also see why they do it. For one thing, it gets extremely boring listening to eight people answer the same question. It would not allow the candidates to say all they want to say in regard to each question. And it decreases the number of questions.

    To avoid these problems, the networks instead look at what is being discussed the most in the country, in blogs, papers, magazines, and news commentaries. They then ask the questions that the nation most wants to know of the candidates about which most people are talking.

    In other words, if Santorum isnt being asked enough questions, it is because there are a lot fewer people talking about Santorum. Everyone is talking about Perry and Romney, so they were asked the most questions. That is just how it is.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 2:22 p.m.

    Wouldn't it be nice if journalists had enough intregrity that you had no idea if they were liberals or conservatives. Could you imagine what it would be like if the bias in the media was not so blatant that you could tell which canidates would receive special treatment and which would be grilled.

  • malwambiwamba Provo, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 1:57 p.m.

    I actually thought MSNBC gave too much attention to candidates who don't have a chance..

  • David King Layton, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 12:26 p.m.

    @Flashback
    It's interesting that we live in a world where the one who advocated not going into a war that has cost the lives of more than 4,000 troops and almost by all estimates more than 100,000 civilians is the "dangerous" and "short-sighted" one. If we are not careful, we will make the same mistake in Iran, and fall prey to over-hyped threats and the results will be the loss of American blood and treasure and the deaths of thousands of civilians. It's time to say enough is enough and bring America's troops home. The troops agree. Ron Paul receives more donations from active-duty troops than Barack Obama and more than all the other Republican candidates COMBINED. I say listen to the opinion of those who are putting their lives on the line, and the majority seem to agree with Ron Paul.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 11:30 a.m.

    For exercise, I bought the heaviest bike I could find - to provide resistance. MSNBC is the perfect venue for a GOP "debate."

    Funniest moment of the night: Newt complaining that the moderators wanted to expose differences among the candidates - AT A DEBATE. Maybe MSNBC should have just stipulated that all 8 agreed on everything -- especially defeating Obama -- and then signed off so we could all get back to football.

    FOX should moderate DEM debates; MSNBC should moderate all GOP.

  • Arm of Orion Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 10:10 a.m.

    One of these days I would love to see a debate between two candidates that not only have questions asked of them by moderators but have follow up and challenging questions to statements they make as they stand. I think then we would be able to see relevant facts opinions and bearings.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 10:01 a.m.

    The letter writer is another Ron Paul fan. Ron Paul, while he may be conservative mostly, some of his foreign policy ideas are dangerous and short sighted. I wouldn't vote for him for that reason.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Sept. 9, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    Easy Jerry! Obviously you strongly dislike the two frontrunners and thats fine, but I don't think you can deny the obvious - Perry and Romney ARE the fronrunners. For once, esquire had a cojent point, there is a lot of time left until the election. Neither neither Romney or Perry would be my pick either.

    The one really big mistake you make, is thinking that MSNBC or any other lamestream media source is trying to support the GOP frontrunners in any way. They are so in it for Obama that there is no room left for them to consider any GOP candidates. They worship BHO and are his loyal lapdog servants. Now they may try to show one candidater or another in a slightly favorable light, (think of McCain in 08) because they recognize that he or she actually gives the annointed one a better chance of winning, but they DO NOT support any GOP candidates. Its the presses dutiful, self appointed responsibility to make Republican candidates look nutty. This is a relatively easy thing to accomplish, given that many BHO supporters are lamestream media followers, and thier shallow, vapid, adolescent thinking is easily influenced.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Sept. 9, 2011 9:38 a.m.

    For you U.S. Constitutionalist's Koch Brother's group of Tea Party Patriots, the recent Republican presidential debate was a propaganda show to allow MSNBC to tell the American people who the front-runners are as determined by MSNBC. We still don't know (if elected) what these RINO's will and won't do. That's the true reality it. To me it was a total waste of time. Five major GOP candidates stood nakedly on the stage, taking deep questions about constitutional principles without a podium or a reporter in sight for 20 minutes. For the first time, presidential candidates were asked: Does the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection apply to unborn human beings, and if so, doesn't Congress have express constitutional authority to enforce this guarantee?. Michele Bachmann opened ground on the life issue by saying "yes," while Mitt Romney showed he understood George's question by saying he would decline to create a "constitutional crisis" over the issue by confronting the court and instead would pledge to appoint justices who would interpret the Constitution correctly.


    Is this all the RNC and Tea Party has to vote for come 2012?.

    If that's the case, I'll have to vote for Obama/Hillary.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 9:27 a.m.

    When there is a debate or other political event, I ask my wife to reserve for me the time to watch on the TV. Even though I ask for 1 or 2 hours she knows it won't take that long. For the republican presidential debate on MSNBC, I lasted almost seven minutes. The real burn was the entrance of the candidates ten minutes before the moderators expected them. Rather than adjust to fit the need, MSNBC followed their script right up to the end of the hour, commercials et all, losing the first few minutes of the action. I just don't understand why they let Fox do the scheduling.

    I lasted about 15 minutes of the republican speech given by President Obama the next day.

    As a devoted liberal American, I sure wish somebody would run for president that represents the people of American and not just business. Hillary or maybe even Jesus.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 9:00 a.m.

    I would like to see the Republicans nominate Ron Paul (ain't gonna happen of course). Why? Because we need a thorough vetting of economic theory. Though I'm a long ways from Paul in this area, he would be the guy to further this debate, which we desperately need to have.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    The was one informative moment in the debate. Gov. Perry called social security a ponzi scheme. If he is the nominee, you can expect that to be in every Democratic ad.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 8:07 a.m.

    Watching these candidates twist the truth and lie to us in a highly orchestrated TV event that has a predetermined outcome.... you won't catch me wasting my time watching that drivel.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 8:06 a.m.

    Using the word "debate" to describe these events is a stretch. The only way to play in the candidates mind is to play not to lose. Offering a new proposal or idea is taboo because it opens up the possibility you will be asked to explain the proposal. Going "off script" is a sure way to lose in the current process. Sticking to the "message" (i.e. talking points) and repeating them no matter what the question in the only way to insure you will not make a mistake that will become a sound bite that will haunt you for the rest of the campaign.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 7:52 a.m.

    There's an old saying: "You get what you pay for".

    If you didn't like what was said [by the GOP candidates], blame those who said it [the GOP candidates].

    BTW - FOX News does NOT accurately depict the rest of real world.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 7:36 a.m.

    So when there was a repub debate a few weeks ago, it was fine for them to pick and choose the candidates and questions. When MSNBC does the exact same thing, it's somehow evil?

    Something tells me the letter writer would have been angry no matter what MSNBC had done.

    Maybe the letter writer is hiding their own frustrations with the GOP?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 7:07 a.m.

    The circus is in town, nothing of substance will occur.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 6:55 a.m.

    I agree. Plus, these forums reduce the dialogue to soundbites.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 6:22 a.m.

    Don't pick on just MSNBC. Fox and the other media outlets have decided which candidates to advance. This is not a decision of the voters.

    But consider that debates this far out from the primaries and all the media speculation is excessive. A lot can happen, but all the media speculation and gossip so far in advance is harmful. The media, not the issues and the candidates, are driving the debate. They are ready to pronounce a winner in the general election, and that is still 14 months away. It has gotten ludicrous and self-serving.

  • Salsero Provo, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 2:50 a.m.

    What debate? Is it a debate when participants refuse to answer the question asked? Talking points devoid of factual content. Except for each participant paying hommage to Ronald Reagan multiple times and trying to stand in the Gipper's shoes, none seemed aware that Ronald Reagan would not be acceptable in today's Tea Party-dominated Republican Party. This must be the Big Secret of today's conservative movement and the strong shift to the Right.

    As for MSNBC, the letter writer could have changed to a different station covering the Republican Debate and very possibly seen the same result. The Republican candidate has come down to two individuals: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, the Tea Party candidate and the Establishment candidate. Unless the early primaries surprise us (which would be very unusual), the other candidates will wither on the vine and fall to the wayside.

    As in every election, follow the money. There are only two real moneymen in this contest. Santorum has none. Bachmann is losing hers. Gingrich is in debt to Tiffany's. Paul is too unreal for realistic backing. Cain is plowing hardpan. And Huntsman is a RINO as far as conservatives are concerned.