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.
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
I agree. Plus, these forums reduce the dialogue to soundbites.
The circus is in town, nothing of substance will occur.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@FlashbackIt'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.
I actually thought MSNBC gave too much attention to candidates who don't have a
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.
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.
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.
political "debates" = political "pattycake".
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.