A Word About Debates
January 25th, 2008 at 06:24am Mark Noonan
We’ve had a lot of ‘em, haven’t we? And are we the better for them? I don’t think so. Here’s my two cents:
A debate is properly done when the candidates get to ask each other questions, and the only thing the moderator does is keep time. Questions from MSMers or other sorts of people are a waste of time - I want to know what McCain wants Romney to answer, and vice versa…and I want to see how a candidate reacts when really put on the spot by his opponent.
That would be a debate.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
19 Comments
1. Retired Spook | January 25th, 2008 at 7:11 am
So that’s where Bush gets his 30% approval rating - from a genetically impared section of the population that cannot learn from their mistakes.
It cuts both ways, CW. I can think of lots of examples on your side of the aisle; mostly ones that you wouldn’t like. Like the fact that roughly 1/3 of Democrats believe President Bush was behind 9/11 or at least knew about it ahead of time and let it happen. Or like all the Lefties like you who come here and repeat tired old Liberal talking points ad nauseam, presumably with the hope of changing someone’s mind on some topic.
2. liberalT | January 25th, 2008 at 7:16 am
roughly 1/3 of Democrats believe President Bush was behind 9/11 or at least knew about it ahead of time and let it happen.
–
care to back that up with a hard statistic? What a lie…
Ok - Mark - the problem with debates is not just the moderator - though certainly some blame can be placed on them. The problem with the debates is that they never go beyond tag lines. “I believe in hope” - from Obabma - or “we have to fight the war on terror” - from RG.
Unfortunately there is this sense out there that in order to score points in the debate it has to be as dumbed down as possible. There is no real discourse in the debates any more. Nothing like the Lincoln - Douglass debates. Of course a lot of that can also be traced to morons you have running these days - I hate to sound partisan but perhaps you guys would like the debates more if you stopped nominating actors and actual accomplished people of letters?
3. js | January 25th, 2008 at 7:33 am
A real debate would have to be without controls. Two candidates on a platform, anything goes.
If they cant focus and respond adequately, what makes anyone think they could be the leader of the most powerful Armed Forces in the world?
4. neocon | January 25th, 2008 at 7:39 am
libT accuses the GOP of not having “accomplished” people running despite the fact that each GOP candidate has much more public and/or private sector experience than the Dem “junior senator” counterparts. What a laugh. Reality is just a fleeting abstract concept to you, isn’t it dear?
Tell us again how giving poor people more money will create jobs? I enjoyed that one.
5. Joe | January 25th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Spook,
I know where you got that 1/3 believing Bush was behind 9/11 stat……. from AAR!!!
I’ve asked him to link where that came from. Heard nothing but crickets.
6. neocon | January 25th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Well a quick google of the subject revealed the following:
(According to a July 2006 poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East (a.k.a. a false flag operation). According to a May 2006 poll, 42% of Americans feel there is a cover-up regarding 9/11. According to an October 2006 Angus Reid poll, 53% of Americans feel the Bush administration is hiding information regarding the 9/11 attacks , and thousands of Americans have signed a petition for a new probe.)
http://bogusstory.com/911_inside_job.html
You’re now free to attack the messenger.
7. Romney » A Word Abo&hellip | January 25th, 2008 at 7:59 am
[…] Instapundit.com wrote an interesting post today on A Word About DebatesHere’s a quick excerptQuestions from MSMers or other sorts of people are a waste of time - I want to know what McCain wants Romney to answer, and vice versa…and I… […]
8. Joe | January 25th, 2008 at 8:12 am
neocon,
I guess I’ll give you that. At least you provided a link. I’ll look into it at lunch time.
The only place I have heard of a coverup like that is from weirdos on internet sites.
If I were a betting man, I would have said that would have been down around 5%.
9. Retired Spook | January 25th, 2008 at 10:51 am
roughly 1/3 of Democrats believe President Bush was behind 9/11 or at least knew about it ahead of time and let it happen. – care to back that up with a hard statistic? What a lie… LibT -7:16AM
Spook,
I know where you got that 1/3 believing Bush was behind 9/11 stat……. from AAR!!! I’ve asked him to link where that came from. Heard nothing but crickets. Joe - 7:39 AM
Guys, this was all over the news last spring. I don’t have time to check B4B’s archives, but I think Matt or Mark did a post on it.
Joe, apology accepted. LibT, drop dead!
10. sleepygene | January 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I watched the debate last night for the first forty-five minutes and the only time the republican crowd cheered for anyone was when Dr. Paul said tht going into Iraq was a mistake. I thought that was amazing, those people cheering that democrat heresy.
11. Retired Spook | January 25th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Man, Joe; those crickets are deafening.
12. Joe | January 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I still find that poll hard to believe. Like I said, I don’t know of any real person that actually believes that it was an inside job. I’ve only heard it on internet bizaro sites.
But hey… fine… I could always claim the B4V and just claim that the poll is bogus and polls don’t mean anything.
13. Retired Spook | January 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I still find that poll hard to believe.
ROTFLMAO, Joe. You are a piece of work. You aren’t registered to vote, are you?
14. Retired Spook | January 25th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Joe, you remind me of the New York socialite (IIRC) who pondered in 1968 how Nixon could have possible won because she didn’t know ANYONE who voted for him. Seriously, you need to crawl out from under your rock more often.
15. SteaM | January 25th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Debates are kinda silly, I agree with that. For me I always end up rooting for the underdogo who ultimately looses. I voted for Perot twice.
16. TiredofLibBullShit | January 25th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
“Man, Joe; those crickets are deafening.”
The crickets Joe hears are the ones coming from his head. Hey Joe, why do you even try to sound intelligent. Sheesh, it was a given that you were going to be burned with that one. As I said before - Have you been living under a rock? If you we on the internet, there was no way you could have missed that one.
“I voted for Perot twice.”
Explains a lot, MeatS.
17. liberalT | January 25th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
ha ha ha - no i mean credible evidence.
18. liberalT | January 25th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
neocon - i didn’t claim that giving poor people money would create jobs. What I said was that if you want to get more spending into the economy giving money to poor people is more effective. Its really not hard to understand - you know - if you are poor then you have things that you can’t afford and once you get the money then you can. As opposed to reach people who tend too keep extra money that they don’t need.
Further - the idea that “rich people” go out and give people jobs because you give them a tax break is just ludicrous. Finally - you know when the economy is doing badly generally the poor are the worst off and so giving them money makes a whole lot more sense than giving it to the rich.
Look you are either horriblly selfish or obtuse - or both..
19. Ken | January 26th, 2008 at 12:31 am
JS ( post #3)
Good Idea… no moderator, no audience. Just the Cameras and two of the candidates.
Make the stage as bland and boring as possible so all the focus will be on the candidates
and what they are saying.