« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Debate Dogs That Didn’t Bark

The debates are over. It’s worth taking a look at what they didn’t cover, which is sometimes as telling as what was said. In 2000 – as I noted in my first widely-read blog post a decade ago, and as Romney noted last night – the subject of terrorism was not even raised, although it would come to dominate Bush’s tenure in office. Some things got less play than you might expect; perhaps the single biggest surprise of last night was that nobody mentioned Benjamin Netanyahu by name, but there was plenty of discussion of Israel (if surprisingly little on the “peace process”). Others got downplayed for obvious reasons; there was discussion of Obamacare at the first debate in particular, but little direct controversy on the individual mandate, perhaps unsurprisingly given Romney’s record.

But here’s a list of the issues that didn’t get discussed at all in any of the debates, in no particular order:

1-The Federal Reserve/monetary policy/QE3/the next Fed chairman

2-The EU and the Eurozone crisis, other than the use of Greece as a cautionary tale. Indeed, Europe in general was largely ignored, in marked contrast to the Bush-Kerry debates in 2004.

3-The descent of Mexico into chaos, other than Romney’s brief discussion – cut off by Candy Crowley – of Operation Fast & Furious.

4-Same-sex marriage. The only reference to any gay-rights issue was a brief mention by Obama of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

5-Climate change/global warming/cap and trade

6-Racial preferences; Romney discussed affirmative action for women, but the subject didn’t otherwise come up.

7-Welfare reform and Obama’s waivers on the issue

8-The death penalty

9-Campaign finance reform

10-Guantanamo and detainee policy

11-Interrogation policy

12-Surveillance policy

13-The TSA/airport security

14-The War on Drugs

15-Sanctions on Cuba

16-U.S. relations with India

17-No Child Left Behind, although there was quite a lot of discussion of education.

18-Stem cell research

19-The growth of executive power, including Obama’s use of executive orders and “czars”

20-H-1B visas, guest worker programs and the border fence with Mexico.

21-Right-to-work and public employee collective bargaining.

22-The BP oil spill

23-Evolution (yes, I know, this is only asked during GOP debates)

COMMENTS

  • celador2

    Any one of those policies would have enlightened and informed the voting public about Obama policy and where the challenger Mit Romney stands in comparison. Monetary policy may divide conservatives and Obama at a core level.
    The Fed might have been a topic that showed a contrast in policy. Unmmask the Fed by discussing it.

    While the US House passed an audit the Fed bill by a big bipartisan vote months ago long tme Audit Fed sponsor Harry Reid did not allow a Senate vote.( yes Reid as late as 2010 campaign backed an Audit the Fed bill.)

    Who paid for Obama’s massive spending 2009 like that 787 bn stimulus? How much has Fed printed and dumped to what ends–slow unemployment? Why are interest rates still so low and kept there by Fed? What impact does the Fed’s ‘easing’ policy have on current and future policies?

    Does Obama fear a 16 trillion debt and rising will harm the US economy? Why not? What is the soundness of the policy of deficit spending that he practices?

    What are the threats to liberty, free markets and limited government with unchecked deficit spending? Here is where Romney could have a word or two in a discussion.

  • celador2

    Climate change and its remedy cap and trade is costly legislation on energy to fine annd regulate coal and fossil emissions. Obama could not pass it with a Senate with 15 Democrats from coal states but he tries to implement cap and trade it by Executive order out of EPA is how it looks to me.
    Can we not find a better way than the cap and trade bill to keep our clean air we all want and still produce clean coal and reach energy independence?
    US is not doomed to import our energy. We have so much.

  • http://conservativemormonmom.blogspot.com ew88

    A few of these issues actually came up as sidenotes or indirectly when Romney talked about problems in Obama’s policies, but most of them didn’t come up at all. Is it any wonder than liberal commentators would avoid topics toxic to Obama with the general electorate?

  • Ausonius

    Actually, in one sense, everything is “too complex” for a “two-minute talk”. This is why the Lincoln-Douglas debates on slavery went on for hours. Our videotic kulcher thinks it can understand everything in minutes. When one wonders why the level of our discourse has deteriorated, even among the so-called educated, look at the TV screens and the computer screens.

  • barleycorn

    Bingo. I don’t advise going back to the Lincoln – Douglas format but we should go back to a format where lengthier answers can be given.

  • Tbone

    Romney could have got a lot of votes if he would have said he was going to redeploy every TSA agent to Gitmo.

  • renl57

    It’s not so much that,

    as that it’s hard to explain how the Eurozone crisis affects any average American personally. Remember, the name of the game is to motivate each individual VOTER to vote for your candidate. And that motivation is highest when the voter feels that his own personal future is at stake.

    Some issues in the above list, like drugs and airport security, are easy to connect to individual voters’ own lives. Others, like the E.U.’s problems, are not.

  • ctredstater

    An interesting list. On Mark Levin’s program today a caller mentioned that he heard almost nothing mentioned in the 6 hours about the United States Constitution. Seems like Romney may have had a fleeting mention in the first debate. I believe it would have served him well to work in references to the Constitution from time to time.

    the other observation I have looking at the list – is that the game was wired when Hempstead NY was selected as the site for the Town Hall format, with Candy Crowley as the Moderator. The crowd submitted questions and she selected them. Most of them, of course, were written with a leftist bias. thus, no chance to hear about executive power, same sex marriage, right to work, etc.

    The selection of Raddatz was another great example of the left setting the agenda. Her experience as a foreign correspondent meant that she was likely, and did, slant the questioning to Ryan’s area of least knowledge and experience. Gosh, what a coincidence.

    I hope the Republicans are not so pusillanimous next time regarding the debate format and moderator selection. Any Republican had better get used to “always playing an away game” with the media – but that doesn’t mean we should go all Rodney King (“can’t we all get along”) on setting these things up.

  • mpemby59

    I do not see in any of the current politicians an understanding or appreciation of Islamic beliefs. Considering that few Christians have devoted the time and effort to read and study their Bible, it would be surprising if the politicians and bureaucrats of our government had bothered to read the Koran and the Hadith; the “sayings” of Mohammad. I must consider that the government’s advisers on foreign policy are either equally illiterate concerning Islam, or they are Muslim or Muslim sympathizers.
    Islam is a theocracy, and no facade of democracy will alter the fact that the Imams
    and Mullahs hold the only real authority in any Muslim community or country. The
    ultimate goal of Islam, other than sharing Heaven with God and seventy virgins, is to
    convert or eliminate every human being on this planet. The fact is that there are no moderate Muslims; only those who are willing to commit murder and those who provide them with support!
    Until our government and people stop viewing Islam as the moral equivalent of Christianity, stop being deceived by the fact that some Muslims seem to be genuinely nice people, and begin to recognize the threat that Islam represents to our culture and civilization, then they will be incapable of formulating an effective foreign policy to deal with Muslim terrorists and Muslim countries.
    Christian “Holy Wars” are a thing of the distant past, but Islamic Jihad is a fact in the present day. I do not unconditionally approve of the conduct of the Crusades and the methods of making war in ancient times, but neither do I propose to judge them by modern standards and sensibilities. What I do judge is the present day chaos in the world that is rooted in Islamic teaching and belief.
    Anyone who cherishes liberty and freedom in the world of today and into the future of mankind should recognize the unsuitability of a Muslim or a Christian theocracy run by fallible and self-serving humans. The alternative is to learn Arabic, begin teaching our children to recite “there is only one God, and Mohammad is His prophet”, accept the cruel and sadistic Sharia law with be-headings and mutilations, and give up any
    semblance of human rights and equality. Please note that Muslim countries are still practicing slavery and women have no rights in the eyes of Islam.

  • Pingback: continue

  • Pingback: Guadalupe Dikens

  • Pingback: Gregory Antill

  • Pingback: Mohammed Habermann

  • Pingback: Alex Faughn

  • Pingback: Clair Dundlow

  • Pingback: Jayson Teto

  • Pingback: Ross Kanoza

  • Pingback: Ruthanne Rosse

  • Pingback: Dominique Macaskill

  • Pingback: Amee Strole

  • Pingback: Thanh Bleich

  • Pingback: Trisha Palmisciano

  • Pingback: Florencio Melchin

  • Pingback: Roberta Benzel

  • Pingback: Jenifer Wesselhoft

  • Pingback: Suzanna Woznicki

  • Pingback: Augustus Standfield

  • Pingback: Arron Sunderlin

  • Pingback: Suzette Krawczyk

  • Pingback: Julie Quiroz

  • Pingback: Ali Recar

  • Pingback: Taren Baize

  • Pingback: Will Bruechert

  • Pingback: Christoper Gordan

  • Pingback: Ezequiel Aloe

  • Pingback: Meggan Schlereth

  • Pingback: Ignacio Godeaux

  • Pingback: Cristy Scarff

  • Pingback: Derek Iozzi

  • Pingback: Mason Oberhausen

  • Pingback: Eleonore Rhodd

  • Pingback: Lane Tartaglino