Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice. The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death.
Neil Postman, “Amusing Ourselves to Death”
We live in an entertainment culture. The lives of many in this country revolve around the consumption of media and entertainment. Sports is almost an object of worship to some, and events such as the BCS Championship and the Super Bowl are virtually national holidays, surrounded by endless attention in the news/sports media and other popular culture outlets. Given that media consumption is now so ubiquitous, with flat-screen digital TVs, smartphones, satellite TV, streaming video, iPads and other multimedia sources, is it any wonder that politics has now taken on a similar flavor? 2012 is an election year and along with it, politics as entertainment has come to the fore. Even Entertainment Weekly has a “Politics As Entertainment” page! But the biggest proof point for this is the seemingly endless series of debates between GOP candidates. This may make for good entertainment, but does it make for good politics?
We could see this coming long before the primary season began. As Politico noted on Sunday, GOP Chairman Reince Priebus made an attempt to put some controls around the debate schedule.
In words that were one part prescient, one part naive, Priebus in April warned at a media breakfast: “The idea of twenty different forums and twenty different groups is a little much. We need to have some order in our debate process.”
Priebus’s effort to have a Republican National Committee commission take control of the process quickly got answers from presidential campaigns and sponsoring news organizations: nice try. And fat chance.
I believe there are two key reasons that the campaigns and the news organizations have fed this debate overload. First, the campaigns, specifically of the lower-tiered candidates, saw debates as a means to get exposure for their (wo)man. Candidates such as Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman would likely have never had the slightest chance of success without the debates to give them a hearing. But the debates have only delayed what most would consider to be the inevitable end to the lower-tiered campaigns. From the Politico:
The dynamic has shaped the GOP race at every turn. Candidates like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich went, at least briefly, from the margins to center stage based on debate performances. Candidates who looked formidable by traditional yard sticks, like Rick Perry and Tim Pawlenty, crashed based on lackluster debate skills. Meanwhile, keeping candidates like Michigan Rep. Thad McCotter and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson off stage so deprived them of oxygen that it contributed to their departures from the GOP race.
“If they keep you out of the debates, you are out of the conversation, and you can’t run,” McCotter told The Detroit News when he dropped out in September. “It was sort of death by media.”
Romney solidified his standing as national front-runner with strong early performances in the debates. But his advisers, leery about exposing their candidate to so many tests, maneuvered behind the scenes to control the process.
“Second-tier candidates will take every debate they can take,” said Tom Rath, a top Romney adviser in New Hampshire. “The people who are in the upper tier don’t want to run the risk of being arrogant to the people in the second tier, so they show up. So it becomes a who’s going to blink first?”
However, the support from the news outlets is more intriguing. This second motivation for more debates stems from the “reality TV” aspects of presidential debates. It gives the media outlets free content, much like an episode of “Cops” or “America’s Funniest Home Videos”.
This weekend produced the unprecedented attraction of two nationally televised debates separated by just twelve hours, with a Saturday evening debate at St. Anselm College in Goffstown on ABC News and another one Sunday morning on NBC News as part of a special edition of “Meet the Press.”
The weekend highlighted an intriguing paradox of this year’s contest. One of the rare beliefs that Republicans have in common with President Barack Obama is disdain for the 24-hour mainstream media culture, with its emphasis on process and tendency to view politics through the prisms of entertainment and sports. Yet a media-wary party this year is in the midst of a nominating contest in which media — most especially cable news networks — have had more power than the national party, early-state activists or anyone else in setting the agenda.
Rep. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), who laments how debates have “nationalized the race,” hopes both parties get control next time. He thinks voters ask better questions than debate moderators.
If they can use debates to make the news themselves, why would the media be motivated to limit the number of debates? Virtually every major media outlet: CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, Bloomberg, C-SPAN – have all sponsored and/or co-sponsored a GOP debate this season. And with each has come over-dramatized commentary, play-by-play, live blogging (like here at Redstate), “post-game analysis” and endless TV and print news stories and blog postings in response. Political junkies watch these events as if they were the Sunday afternoon NFL Game of the Week. If there was a baseball-style scorecard to keep, we’d be keeping it. We count the number of gaffes, one-liners and figurative body blows as if we were tracking a pitcher’s ERA or a goaltender’s GAA.
But is this a good thing?
As RS co-contributor Aaron Gardner points out in his diary, “Unfortunately, it appears we have decided that we can forgive bad policy records easier than we can forgive poor debate performances.” The “stats” from the debates have become the issue, rather than the issues themselves. The consistently poor debate moderation has not helped matters. Almost universally, left-leaning news mavens have “moderated” these debates and have been more like shark fishermen chumming bait and waiting for the water to fill with blood, rather than acting as moderators facilitating the interactions between candidates. This week, George Stephanopoulos was widely panned for his hyperpartisan performance as “moderator” in the New Hampshire debate. According to the Daily Caller,
ABC News commentator George Stephanopoulos directed pointed, hard-edged questions to Republican presidential candidates during Saturday night’s New Hampshire debate, often attacking without providing evidence to justify his broadsides.
When questioning former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Stephanopoulos, a former senior advisor in the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton, premised some inquiries on the assertion — offered without supporting facts — that Romney’s job-creation statistics were inaccurate.
“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”
“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”
Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.
This was not the first occurrence of this media-figure-turned-leftist-talking-point-o-matic syndrome. A similarly biased moderation effort came from Brian Williams back in September and from Diane Sawyer in December. Perhaps this can be written off as poor grades in Speech 101, but given the left-wing bias in the mainstream media, I would place my bets on an intentional effort to poison the GOP candidate field. As some here at Redstate have pointed out, we appear to have allowed the media to select our candidates for us via their debate skills, rather than we Republicans/conservatives assessing their policy positions and their ability to be the President of the United States.
The debates are not all bad. There is obviously value in demonstrating the ability for a candidate to respond to adversaries in a stress-filled environment. As the Politico article points out,
The ability to project a strong, crisp message under the glare of TV lights and a national audience is not necessarily the worst way to test presidential readiness — any more than the ability to make a good impression while shaking hands at a Des Moines, Iowa, or Manchester diner.
Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn said he welcomed having a large number of debates, several of which were in Iowa. He noted that the televised encounters gave a platform to underfunded candidates, like Rick Santorum, to command attention. “Any question that you’re going to get asked in a primary debate better prepare you for a general election debate,” Strawn said. “They make the nominee a stronger general election candidate.”
However, there is a limit to the usefulness of this format, especially given the conditions fostered by hostile “moderators” and the grueling schedule that the dozens of debates add to the “normal” grind of a campaign.
What can be done about this? The news outlets are free to hold whatever events they so choose, and the candidates are free to participate in any event they so choose. Can the parties do anything about this? Should they? Some here at Redstate derisively speak of “the establishment” picking our candidates. In a way, the debates have circumvented that.
Former Iowa GOP Chairman Steve Grubbs, who ran Cain’s Iowa campaign this year, thinks it’s good for voters to hear a diversity of views — not just ones vetted by insiders.
“Whatever was powerful before — parties, machine politics or simply years of building a national organization — has been almost completely usurped by the power of the political debate,” said Grubbs. “And I think that’s a good thing.”
But where does it end? At what point do the debates become an almost nightly event, akin to endless reruns of “M*A*S*H”? How do we prevent the mainstream press from selecting our candidate, rather than some nebulous “party machine?” Karl Rove wrote about this in a WSJ op-ed back in December:
For the most part, the debates have been helpful. Before them, the “generic Republican” never led President Barack Obama in any Gallup survey. Since early July, the generic GOPer has often been leading Mr. Obama. The debates likely contributed to this shift.
Still, there can be too much of a good thing. Debates have nearly crippled campaigns, chewing into the precious time each candidate has to organize, raise money, set themes, roll out policy and campaign.
Each debate kills at least three days: one day (and sometimes two) to prepare, the day of the debate, and the day after, spent dealing with the fallout from the night before. This late in the process—there are 19 days until Iowa and 26 days until New Hampshire, with the Christmas and New Year’s holidays eliminating crucial campaign days—many candidates might want to chart their own schedules and set their own message priorities. But the debates won’t allow for that.
This also needs to be said: What we’re watching are not really debates. They are seven- or eight-person news conferences. Their choppy nature makes cogent argument difficult and thoughtful policy discussion almost nonexistent. There’s a premium placed on memorable sound bites and snappy comebacks. Those are the clips that are endlessly replayed.
Debates transfer power to the media, draining it from the campaigns. Moderators and their news organizations—through questions they frame or select—have more impact than candidates on what’s covered and discussed. Because each debate is a lavish feast of comments and confrontations, the media also decide what aspects are most worthy of post-debate coverage.
Rove’s last point (highlighted) is key: we have allowed a transfer of power to the media. And given the political leanings of the media in this country, that is a very bad thing.
But hey, this is a boon to the revenues of the media outlets! But it is far worse for our political process and our culture. Again, from Neil Postman:
“When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.”
In some ways, the endless stream of debates have reduced politics to “a form of baby-talk” where policy is secondary and sound bites and slams are the goal.
The concern this election season is not the death of culture, it’s the death of our nation. Permitting an overdose of entertainment-drenched debates media events to determine the course of the election is, in some odd ways useful in candidate vetting, but in others, it is unwise and dangerous.
Victoria Coates
Aaron Gardner
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
Dan Spencer
Once Again: These "Debates" Are NOT Debates/Neil Postman: The Disappearance of Childhood
Ausonius (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 8:19PM EST (link)You are quite right: the entire “debate” format is stupid and Republicans should be smart enough to refuse to follow it.
But of course, they are too frightened and cowardly to refuse. So the charade continues. Gingrich a least has occasionally said that the emperor in the debate has no clothes.
I was happy to see your quote of Neil Postman’s book. His career, while it had a liberal air to it at times, had more of a conservative bent at times. Highly skeptical of technology (he was against computers in school classrooms, as am I), he best summarized our current predicament 30 years ago in a classic book called “The Disappearance of Childhood.”
His thesis: the information age opens up the adult world – which used to keep its secrets about sexuality, violence, and other unsavory topics away from children – so that even 6 year old kids with an Internet signal or a TV antenna can see and hear every sexual act, every act of violence, every disgusting aspect of human life.
Such information used to be encased in words: being able to read on a higher level was the key to such information, and even then it could only be as graphic or accurate as one’s imagination. As the camera has become king, words have faded. The decline in grammar, style, and vocabulary and the rise of profanity and crudity are directly connected to the pictorial age of “indumbation.”
His criticism of the mainstream media is just as relevant today as it was in 1982, and unfortunately much of the evil of stupidity which he predicted is now roosting in our schools, businesses, and government offices, and as Bill W. points out, has infected our nomination process with its poison.
Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.
Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
Cato@rock.com
What is a debate?
fabio (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 9:30PM EST (link)It’s hard to imagine what would even constitute a debate in our current national context. Would it involve discussing the finer points of the constitutionality of presidential signing statements? Would it mean poring over — on the stage — the several thousand pages of the health care bill to determine which provisions should remain and which should not? Are we supposed to pretend that presidents (or even their immediate advisors) would read the legislation they sign or veto anyhow?
We are in a tough position, we political observers. We clamor for substance, but “substance” requires a commitment not merely to read those thousands of pages, but indeed to understand them in a broader social and philosophical/ideological context (as opposed merely to cherry-picking specific provisions that offend us after our favorite think-tank has done a bit of the hard work for us). The kind of brainpower necessary to be a political renaissance man is tremendously daunting, and the time involved in mastering even one broad area of federal policy-making is prohibitive for any non-professional.
Postman is helpful here, but only to an extent. While his work can help us see the nature of our increasing stupidity and loss of sophistication, it doesn’t help us combat it. We can no more return to a textual age than the Greek heirs of Homer could have returned to an oral one. Our politics will forever more reflect this loss.
Read The Lincoln-Douglas Debates/Not Following The Herd
Ausonius (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 8:26AM EST (link)Even the Nixon-Kennedy debates were closer to a real classic debate than today’s idiotic arrangement of sound-bites for our ADHD society.
Combating national aliteracy (being able to read rudimentarily, but not bothering to read or improve one’s ability) will occur only when people decide that they have a problem. Not unlike alcoholism, you need to admit that you have a problem first.
Is it any wonder that foreigners who know English well are the ones capturing Ph.D.’s in engineering and the sciences? A recent appalling statistic said that only 5-10% of engineering Ph.D candidates are American-born.
Albert Jay Nock, a philosopher, postulated 80 years ago the decline of America from just this sort of self-satisfied laziness. To combat it, he predicted the rise of what he termed The Remnant, a few who would preserve the best of America and save it for future times, much as medieval monks preserved the learning of the Romans and to a lesser extent the Greeks.
Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.
Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
Cato@rock.com
In my opinion
adair Monday, January 9th at 11:54AM EST (link)the non-debate discussions between Newt and Herman Cain, and especially the one between Newt and Jon Huntsman, were truly interesting and truly educational.
I wish Newt and Romney had been able to schedule such a thing before Newt went so completely snarky and unpleasant to watch. Yes, he’s trying to unseat Romney by “going negative;” but he’d have been able to do that by more of his searing criticisms of The One, along with his many solutions. Romney’s solutions sound too much like un-particular, unspecific sloganeering.
The worst part of the horde of leftist debates
Scope (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 8:23PM EST (link)and you you point out, it is an almost free venue for the low level candidates to get some air time, which they would not normally get. They could care less if the debates became a circus, and a leftist media bonanza, there faces, names and egos were on full display, especially with Bachmann, the attack dog early and often. Look where she is now. But she did provide the leftist entertainment value they were seeking.
Thanks for the information on how and why this has happened this year. I wondered who agreed to this schedule. Almost free face time seems to have ruled the day, however the strongest candidates didn’t have to agree to the schedule. Newt seems to want to debate everyone, including agreeing to participate in the Trump debate, as debating is his strongest suit, bit he falls down where his record is concerned. When more than half the field goes all in for the leftist media events, the rest would look like scared spoil sports if they didn’t participate. Our own candidates have brought this on themselves. Let the lower tier debate amongst themselves, Newt was there with them for the longest time. Someone has to learn the word NO.
Follow the money
NickDeringer (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 8:29PM EST (link)According to Hugh Hewitt, talk show host and executive editor of TownHall magazine, the MSM stands to make 5 billion in revenue from this year’s presidential campaign. They will rake in money from ad buys, increases in ratings, higher ad revenue, etc. It is in the best interest of the MSM to drag this season out as long as possible. It’s like the malls adding hours to their schedules during the Christmas Season.
They are propping up one candidate after another and driving the drama along so you can’t wait to get to your TV remote and see if Santorum smacked down anybody. As a famous philosopher once said “It’s all about the Benjamins.”
This is hurting the process. It’s turning politics into an arena sport and turning voters into spectators instead of participants.
NickDeringer
Precisely.
Bill S (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 8:34PM EST (link)Great comment. That is the message I attempted to formulate. Good stat from Hewitt…I need to run that one down.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
Hewitt was on the Dennis Prgaer show
NickDeringer (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 8:23AM EST (link)You can try the podcast archives…let me see if I can get you a date. I was thinking of posting on the same topic as you, but you beat me to it.
excellent job.
NickDeringer
Hewitt was on the 12-22-2011 Prager show
NickDeringer (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 9:01AM EST (link)The second hour. He didn’t say where he got the statistic.
NickDeringer
Excellent piece, Bill S.
westcoastpatriette (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 8:52PM EST (link)And to add insult to injury, we are playing right into the media’s hands as we obsess over every aspect of every debate. And worry about the day-to-day polls as if they really matter. If it weren’t for all of this drama, there would be many political pundits without jobs.
Even granting the point...
fabio (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 9:12PM EST (link)…why does it matter? So what if power is being “transferred” to left-leaning news media? So what if candidate time is being taken up with primping for TV cameras that deliver images to the same 6-8 million people?
Look, the bottom line about politics is this: Postman was right — and because he was right, because politics has become entertainment, the point being made in this post is akin to noting that CBS is winning the ratings season instead of ABC. In the end, one of these candidates will become president or not. If he does, then these debates will have proved pointless exercises and wastes of time. If he doesn’t, ditto.
It’s time for us to realize that nothing that we see from candidates is relevant to governance. Political analysis requires reading between their lines.
Baloney
Bill S (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 9:44PM EST (link)The answer is that we must demand substance. The GOP cannot allow the election cycle be dictated by our enemies. Priebus needs to exert the GOP’s influence over the process. The TRUE CONSERVATIVES!! will piss and moan over it, but…tough. There must be more control over the number of debates and over the moderation and content.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
The only way the GOP will get "influence over the process" is for
davesinsanantonio (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 5:25AM EST (link)the RNC, and all other Republican and conservative groups to get together, decide what they want these things to be, announce what they WILL be, and then withhold money and other support from any candidate who steps outside those boundaries, or participates in any “debate” which does not follow the guidelines, and declares a boycott of any media outlet which does not follow the “rules”. Only then will we turn entertainment into productive dialogue.
If you have a pulpit, bully or not, and refuse to use it as a pulpit should be used, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Anyone but Newt.
PGDeFreese (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 9:49PM EST (link)Maybe I’m paranoid or my tinfoil hat is adjusted a tad bit tight, but beyond money making it seems the MSM agenda is to ensure anyone but Newt becomes the GOP candidate.
He is the one candidate that has proven, at least on occassion, that he will not dance to their tune or explain just how silly the refrain has become.
_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words…-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Do you really think Democrats would agree to a debate hosted by Karl Rove?
crosley (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 10:06PM EST (link)Way too many debates and too many celebrity candidates. The RNC needs to take control of this process next time, the long shots and grassroots can cry all they want about it.
There should be something like 8 debates total (and that’s still too many) and filter out the book tour candidates with some sort of fundraising and/or poll number threshold.
The RNC also needs to make sure friendly moderators are in charge of these debates, have publications like the Weekly Standard, National Review, Washington Times, etc. not partisan hacks like Chris Matthews or George Stephanopolous or anyone at MSNBC.
It’s clear the liberal debate moderators would rather ask questions about divisive wedge issues like contraception, homosexuality, evolution, etc. when they’re not just trying to push the silly “horse race” type battles to bloody the candidates.
I can guarantee you though, the “grassroots” will scream the loudest about how the Establishment is “rigging” the debates if they step in.
Exactly.
Bill S (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 10:20PM EST (link)I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. Not sure about the #, but 8 sounds reasonable. Ditch the leftist mods. And you’re right – as I said above, the TRUE CONSERVATIVES will be apoplectic.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
On debates, they do serve a purpose of course
septembergurl (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 10:44PM EST (link)during the primaries there could be 6 or 8 debates, with a variety of venues and moderators/sponsors. I don’t understand why we have to have only MSM mods. for instance Glenn Reynolds would be great. Ed Morrissey. Erick would be great.
Also, it seems to me we could have some regional fora or debates of the kind Huckabee had. I think that’s actually useful. The point is, we’re trying to clarify the issues and candidates, also winnow the field, also prepare our candidates for the Presidential debates next fall. But it doesn’t have to be a brutal and stupid as it is. The ABC debate with Stephanopolous and Sawyer was really terrible.
Again, see my comments above, but Lefties should
davesinsanantonio (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 5:30AM EST (link)not be in OUR process!!! That should be one of the rules.
Let them do their thing in the Dimocrat “debates”, but they should have no place in ours.
If they don’t like them apples, then maybe they will stop leaning so far left. And maybe hogs will sprout wings. But, why should we care if they become upset? The MSM is shrinking in influence anyway, Why should we help them along when they are opposed to everything we are trying to do. Give THEM air-time helps US how????
agree, It boggles my mind the campaigns agree to that
Common_Cents (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 10:18AM EST (link)Did you notice that Diane Sawyer went out of her way to make it clear that all campaigns agreed to the debate format?
What she was really saying is, they all agreed to be there and take the bashing from the moderators and anything is fair game. And that gay marriage is #1 problem in America and we should focus 20 minutes of debate on it. Well actually, it is just an attempt to smear the whole lot. FAIL.
Obama=Golfer in Chief, Leading from,
behind, the Back Nine.Leaders don’t create movements. Movements create leaders. Get involved. Your future depends on it.
Govt “invests” YOUR tax money for POLITICAL return rather than economic return.
more debates = more opportunities to catch candidates on record with "gotcha" answers
thurman Sunday, January 8th at 10:54PM EST (link)It’s painfully obvious by allowing these debates to be run by so many condescending, left wing moderators, that the media if fully using this as an exercise to get the candidates on record with as many embarrassing questions and gaffes as possible
There are so many pointless, irrelevant questions that I can’t even recount them– all of which were clearly intended to get the candidates on record for future opposition research e.g. Stephanommunist’s repeated questioning about banning birth control
The problem is that all the bottom tier, broke candidates like Bachman and Santorum were given a great forum to prolong their campaign, score cheap shots to get attention, and get free PR far longer than they would have been in a legitimate primary process
Excellent points raised by Bill S and the replies
One valuable thing...
renl57 Monday, January 9th at 7:05AM EST (link)…about taking hostile questions from hostile questioners is that it shows how well you can handle those same questioners in the future.
The left-wing media types who were asking the questions at these debates, are the same left-wing media types who will be asking the questions of the Republican president at every interview and every press conference. They’re not just here for the debates. This is the media that any President has to deal with.
If a candidate can’t deal with a hostile media at the debates without getting flustered or tongue-tied or losing his cool, that suggests that if he’s elected President he won’t be able to deal with the media then either.
We’ve seen President Obama and his minions lash out at any attempt by the media (such as Jake Tapper of ABC) to ask real pointed questions on his Administration’s performance. We didn’t find that out in 2008 because Obama was never vetted on this or many other issues.
We've Seen...
edintexas Monday, January 9th at 11:03AM EST (link)But what has the ultimate result been? Outside of places like RS – pretty much Crickets. Dear Leader hasn’t had to change his ways because he knows the MSM is on “his side”.
I want to chew on this post for a while
kowalski (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 10:57PM EST (link)I think we’ve had too many this year, we seem to have taken the Democrat lead from 2008, when there were 26. In 2008 the donks had 26 debates:. The last 9 were mostly contests among the top two albeit with Richardson packed in the saddlebags for 1 and Edwards surviving with very good looking hair (!) until Debate 20. The final 6 of the 26 featured only the two top contenders. Five of their debates were not televised by a major network.
The breakdown is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008
In a way, both Hillary and Barack won. It will not be thus for Republicans in this cycle. I don’t think for any of them, at this point, no matter how many debates we have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7uaZcLiD_M&feature=relmfu
I don’t know enough to say whether the debates themselves make money for the media. It seems like they should. I do know just by observation that they’re a major logistical undertaking for the places that host them, there’s a lot going on, requiring a lot of people. St. Anselm in New Hampshire has a beautifully-manicured campus and the town itself has to benefit enormously from the repeated debates there – just from the catering! St. Anselm could probably give up its role as a college and just be a “campus that hosts debates” if it had a few more.
I think the Republicans really lost control of their entire party in this election cycle, everything just has come completely apart, and I think we’re going to pay the price. We should probably only have 5 or 6 televised debates, all the rest should be what happens locally all across the country.
Defend Liberty — Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.
I know one thing is for sure
kowalski (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 10:59PM EST (link)We’re not going to have our two top candidates agreeing with each other like the Democrats did in their final debates in 2008. We have a party that comprehensively hates itself and is broken into completely irreconcilable factions at this point.
We really might as well concede the race at this point.
Defend Liberty — Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.
I don't see the base being fired up
kowalski (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 11:03PM EST (link)And I also see the rest of the people who aren’t the base being alienated from the base. We’ve managed to make ourselves so angry that unless we have a major, major change of heart in the next couple of months, we’re just going to splinter into a billion pieces. There isn’t going to be anything for Obama to do come August except say: “Look at what a mess the Republicans are. Is this who you want to lead the country?” And he’ll be persuasive with that argument.
Defend Liberty — Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.
the base is fired up
onionman Sunday, January 8th at 11:13PM EST (link)They just don’t have anyone they can all get behind. This is where I think Moe Lane’s post about the long campaign is relevant. If Perry and/or Newt (and/or Santorum) can survive past Florida it is still anyone’s nomination. As the field narrows I am sure we will see the base unite behind a single credible conservative challenger to Obamney.
Ever since you have been here you have been a loser.
Tbone (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 11:31PM EST (link)Does the sun EVER shine in your life?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Bill, this was a great piece
onionman Sunday, January 8th at 11:02PM EST (link)and you have shown exactly where and why the MSM pulls the strings, to the detriment of the GOP and Conservatism as a whole.
That said, I have one minor quibble about the NH debate: although I was disgusted by Stephanopoulos’ “moderation,” Romney WAS LYING about his so-called jobs creation record. It is true that S. did not provide any sources for the question, but Willard was either completely misinformed about his own record or, as I said before, was lying about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-vs-obama-on-job-creation/2012/01/03/gIQA31g3YP_blog.html
“Romney also claims to have created more than 100,000 jobs as a business consultant. Fehrnstrom [Romney campaign spokesman] says the 100,000 figure stems from the growth in jobs from three companies that Romney helped to start or grow while at Bain Capital: Staples (a gain of 89,000 jobs), The Sports Authority (15,000 jobs), and Domino’s (7,900 jobs). This tally obviously does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved — and are based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain.”
So, to recap, Willard’s “I created 100,000 jobs” statement only included certain specific companies and — contrary to Willard’s rebuttal — did NOT factor in the jobs that were lost when Bain Capital put the companies they bought in bankruptcy (making a fortune for Mitt et al. along the way).
kowalski
onionman Sunday, January 8th at 11:08PM EST (link)This is why I still maintain that the best candidate is Rick Perry. Unlike a certain unnamed Massachusetts “Moderate” the Governor of Texas has a proven record of creating jobs by fostering a pro-growth environment. I could vote for Newt or even Santorum, but with unemployment still astronomically high (much higher than the “official” U-3 measurement of 8.6%) it is unbelievable to me that we are seriously considering anyone but Rick Perry.
He probably was.
Bill S (Diary) Sunday, January 8th at 11:19PM EST (link)That pull was not intended to be a commentary on that particular part of the debate…only to illustrate how GS was trying to push the narrative and using unsubstantiated info. On that particular point, he could well have had the evidence.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
Huckabee's debate was the best.
stumpy Sunday, January 8th at 11:55PM EST (link)I am not sure it would really be considered a debate, but his was the most informative by far. The questioners allowed the candidates to answer the questions and add their own arguements. They also challenged them on their record. They were genuinely interested in getting quality information for the voters. I would be happy to never see an ABC debate again. They were the worst ones of all. I would rather see about 4 to 6 debates, questions asked by neutral Republicans, candidates given time for appropriate answers and questions related to the topics of the election (not stupid contraception questions).
Perry would have been the ideal candidate to put a stop to these. Let them say your afraid to debate. It would have been better than the gaffes. He should have selected about 4 or 5 to go to with the best questioners. We needed a Fred Thompson moment when he refused to participate in the showing of hands because the moderator wouldn’t let him give a real answer and all the others followed. We would only need one or two top candidates to say no and they would fall apart.
Amusement. Literally, the absense of the muse, ignoring the creative.
acat (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 12:30AM EST (link)To amuse is to suppress the creative, which is how the idiot’s lantern (or boob tube, if you prefer) comes by its’ nickname.
‘s no surprise, to this cat, that the debates are spawning out of control, as Star Search gave us American Idol and X Factor and The Voice and Dancing with the Stars and So you think you can dance… I could go on, but I risk the audience tuning out. (grin)
The point is well made, Bill, that our short-attention-span reality-tv soaked brains make the debates appear much more prominent – since they’re more similar to what we’re used to, see previous thought – but the question is what to do about it.
Gingrich, ironically, may have hinted at a possible answer. Marathon debates, early in the cycle.
Candidate take the whole day, in staggered 2 hour blocks, all GOP candidates can participate, GOP to provide a minimalist moderator/timekeeper. Let ‘em rumble.
Admittedly, this does favor legislators, who can bloviate for hours without saying anything, and professors, who can regurgitate facts for hours equally well .. but it also presents an opportunity to really dig into the meat – and to both sell the original, and a cut-down “highlights reel” (which is really all we ever see of Amazing Race or Survivor, eh?) for general consumption.
Let the party sponsor three or four of these, starting around (or better, the day before the straw poll in Ames, IA) and ban media-sponsored debates prior to the 2nd brawl.
Let the weak and under-funded, let the Gary Johnsons and the Thad McCotters show up and take their two hour spot and see how they fare…. and let the well-funded campaigns not have to run around preparing for another and another and another forum.
Just a thought.
Mew
——
“All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost”. –Tolkein
The problem with that is instead of a dozen "candidates"
davesinsanantonio (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 5:36AM EST (link)you will soon have scores, and then, probably, hundreds as the fringe seeks, and even demands, their fifteen minutes of fame.
Show me these scores of candidates, Dave S.
acat (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 9:37AM EST (link)Show me where there are scores of candidates for the GOP primary.
Mew
——
“All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost”. –Tolkein
The biggest problem isn't the number of events
Adjoran (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 2:06AM EST (link)but allowing MSM panelists to become part of the story. There is no real need for panelists onstage; candidates for President should be able to raise all relevant issues themselves. Panelists are only trying to cover Obama and divert the discussion, and hoping for that “gotcha” question that derails a campaign.
Have a timekeeper to even things out – but who does NOT have questioning privileges. Let the candidates talk about what they want to. It will be more informative. Media will cover it as news even if they don’t get to make the rules.
Translation: "I'm angry because Perry bombed"
renl57 Monday, January 9th at 6:34AM EST (link)Let me sum up this entire long article as follows:
“We Perry supporters hate the debates. Because they exposed Perry as unable to think on his feet and talk extemporaneously before an audience of non-Perry supporters”
If Perry had aced the debates and ended up the front-runner as the result, this article would not be appearing here.
Translate this
Bill S (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 8:36AM EST (link)A) there’s not a word about Rick Perry in here
B) this is a threadjack…don’t do it again.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
The quick on his feet is a BS buzzword
jgge Monday, January 9th at 9:58AM EST (link)and means absolutely nothing in judging if someone is qualified or not to be President. Presidents do not govern in 30 second sound bites and must not govern in 30 second sound bites. I do not want the President to make decisions that change the nation and the word in 30 seconds. Do you really believe that the President has 30 seconds to make a decision and if he does not there is so ****ing moderator ringing the bell for him that his time is over. Now go and watch a stupid reality show because your tiny brain does not understand what are the “real” qualifications for someone to be President.
You are interpretting "quick on feet" in an overly narrow manner
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 10:27AM EST (link)Are you saying that a President doesn’t engage in Q&A in an almost daily basis?
Just walking towards Marine 1 Presidents answer questions.
W was terrible at this, and unfortunately, Perry reminded people of W in this respect in making his first impression to the country.
I support Perry, and agree that he would make the best President. However, pretending that the ability to think on one’s feet (or more accurately “sounding like someone who thinks quickly on one’s fee”) is irrelevant is a bunch of bull.
W’s political capital went down the drain in large part because he couldn’t handle the media and had a poor communications strategy.
If you can’t keep the public with you, you can’t effectuate public policy no matter how brilliant your ideas or how principled you are. Being quick on one’s feet is part of keeping the public with you.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
Who's running the show?
Risky (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 6:48AM EST (link)I don’t think anyone would want the first televised debate the candidates face to be vs Obama, but surely the RNC or the state parties should take ownership of this and decided when and where and what. If the medai don’t buy some of the debates so be it but at least the GOP’s vaguely back in charge of it’s own primary process.
Who's running the show?
Risky (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 6:48AM EST (link)I don’t think anyone would want the first televised debate the candidates face to be vs Obama, but surely the RNC or the state parties should take ownership of this and decided when and where and what. If the medai don’t buy some of the debates so be it but at least the GOP’s vaguely back in charge of it’s own primary process.
Cain and Newt's Lincoln/Douglas was the best.
tngal (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 7:46AM EST (link)Ample time to expound on policy plans and demonstrate reasoning behind a candidate’s thought process. Less about moderator and more about the candidates. Not about the gotchas. Just a calm manner to lay out your point of view and maybe how it differs from the others.
On the down side it wouldn’t work too well with more than 4 candidates at a time.
We're not learning anything new plus the answers lack
Juggernaut (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 9:45AM EST (link)specifics with all but a few candidates. Even then the silly time limits don’t allow anything close to a detailed answer though it does cut off the rhetoric disguised as a serious answer.
Its time for online townhall debates where the people ask a question and no moderator. Let a few chosen members of the public pick the answers in real time rather than cherry picking ones that trigger talking points.
The taxpayer – that’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.
- Ronald Reagan
We as Americans Need To Understand!
constitutionalbeliever Monday, January 9th at 9:09PM EST (link)We as Americans need to understand what the difference is between the truth and the Worlds Military Industrial War Complex Regime’s Propaganda! That same Military industrial War Complex Regime that President Eisenhower warned us about on January 17, 1961 AD to date almost 51 year ago. As Americans we are still ignoring this warning, So Now They Are “The Powers That Be” Either you believe this or not, What you see in most of the political spectrum is all just an illusion created by “TPTB” to keep the people of the world entertained with the puppet shows just enough to distract you so “TPTB” can work on the agenda of the One World Government or the New World Order. And They Will Not Stop Until We Are All Enslaved! With the exception of a few palliations that openly try to warn us, when they mention this very old cliché “The Devil Is In The Details”, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate left that will Not perpetuate their evil agenda, by returning back to the Foundation of this Great Nation. Returning Back To the Divinely Inspired Creation, The Constitution of The United States of America!
Now, you can help make the corrections to Our Republic, Help Save Our Constitution!
When the people fear the government, that’s Tyranny!
When the government fears the people, that’s Liberty!
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!
Now Is the Time for All Good Men and Women to come to the aid of Our Country!
Make the Difference and Take a Stand with other Good Men and Women.
Info @ www.wakeupamerica.com/constitutionalbelievers
If We Don’ WAKE UP AMERICA Now!!! This Is Our Future Now! http://www.infowars.com/government-censors-document-revealing-plans-to-wage-war-on-americans/
This Future is already here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nchQl9JDg&feature=bulletin
America is on the precipice of demise! http://www.inflation.us/videos.html
Take Care and GOD BLESS The Whole World!
Sincerely
Mr. Harris
ConstitutionalBelievers@hot.rr.com
banned paultard
Why are all debates carried out by the Left?
ihateliberals Tuesday, January 10th at 12:03AM EST (link)Even when the candidates are Democrat the debates are never by the Right? Plus I must have missed this course on debates when i was on the Debating team in college. this is not a debate it is a free for all conducted by the opposition t the Party involved.