Contraceptives, Stephanopoulos, and What To Do About the Debates
Although no genius, ABC commentator and former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos is not stupid. Nevertheless, he seemed like an outright doofus (or yahoo!) as host of the ABC/Yahoo New Hampshire debate on Saturday when he kept pressing Mitt Romney on the constitutionality, of all things, contraceptives.
No, that wasn’t an episode of Saturday Night Live or Fawlty Towers. It was a typical mainstream media operative, unable to control his bias, desperately seeking to expose the Republican frontrunner in some manner or to create some kind of gaffe that would damage him for the general election.
Romney, to his credit, treated the gotcha question with the proper amount of amused disdain, allowing Stephanopoulos to dig a yet bigger hole for himself and turning the audience in the candidate’s favor.
In this essentially meaningless exchange, Stephanopoulos became the poster boy for the whole debate process in which a long line of Republican candidates have paraded themselves for inspection in front of panel after panel of largely liberal media interlocutors.
Fortunately for the Republicans, those interlocutors haven’t been very good at what they do. Part of the reason is that liberal (Keynesian) economics is for all intents and purposes defunct and everybody knows that — so those liberal journalists don’t really have anywhere to go on the key issue of the campaign. Another reason may be that they are not as skilled as we, or they, think they are. A third may be that the Republicans were inflicting sufficient wounds all by themselves.
Still, the entire summa of now fifteen debates has yielded little of substance or depth. We learned that Rick Perry isn’t very good at debating (but has gotten somewhat better), that Newt Gingrich is very good at debating (but allows his thin skin to make him worse), that Ron Paul has adamant supporters and doesn’t worry about the mullahs (no surprise), that Rick Santorum is socially conservative and does worry about the mullahs (again no surprise) and that Romney makes a relatively unflappable frontrunner (probably a good trait for a president).
I suppose these somewhat minor observations were worth three, possibly four, debates. In essence, the system is in need of serious rethinking.
This is especially true for the general election. I have a recommendation — shamelessly stolen from Newt Gingrich.
Let’s put an end to the interlocutors. We don’t need media filters — left, right or center. I am not interested in Jane Pauley. I am not interested in Chris Wallace. I get to see plenty of them. I am not interested either in supposedly random questions chosen (by whom?) from Facebook or Twitter.
I am interested in the candidates and what they have to say to each other — mano-a-mano — in the style of Lincoln and Douglas.
They should be given a topic for the debate (entitlements, Iran, whatever) and be set free to examine it. Those issues can be discussed at length and in more depth without the interference of media personalities who, besides being biased one way or the other, are often more interested in the promotion of themselves or their companies.
The debaters further would not be able to hide behind their media allies, overt or covert. If the president or his Republican adversary attempts to monopolize the conversation, blows up emotionally, resorts to nasty ad hominems or simply engages in absurd argumentation, it would be exposed for all to see. Ideas and the ability to express them would be on display.
Some say the debating skills of a president are not important. While I agree they may be overemphasized, they are still significant. You have to communicate well to achieve your goals. Whatever you may think of their polices, it’s no accident two of the most successful presidents of the Twentieth Century were exceptional communicators — Ronald Reagan and FDR.
In the Lincoln-Douglas approach, their debating and thinking skills would be tested, not to mention their ideologies. And it would be great theater — far more interesting than the pabulum we have been recently served.
I doubt Barack Obama will have the guts to do it. He is an utterly conventional man who has done nothing remotely imaginative while in office that I can think of. Also, his chief strategy seems to be to demonize the Republicans, a more daunting task if you deal with one face to face
But if it does happen, I am relatively certain of one thing. There is one topic that if either party brings it up, he will be deemed a fool: contraceptives.
ADDENDUM: Another amusing view here.
George Stephanopoulos was grandstanding. He’s the hero of the moment to the MSM and the thin herd that watch them. And you thought the point of these debates was to get a feel for the candidates? These debates are a 3 ring circus.
Do we have “any” Republican/conservative commentators/powerhouses/loudmouths for these debates?
Everywhere we look it’s all about the liberals/democrats and what they want..
George is a wiener and I really dislike him….he showed us his “little man” complex
I don’t want to vote for any of the present candidates that republicans are putting on the national stage..and no i don’t like christie either. Obama will wipe the floor up with any of them. James Carville will be out in full voice for what ever candidate the democrats present…Obama/Hillary or ?? Conservatives have NO ONE>>> a bunch of milquetoast men
It’s a national disgrace that the Republican party can not do better…
Hey Roger, statements like “liberal (Keynesian) economics is defunct and everybody knows it are ridiculous. Who is everybody? Saying everybody knows it doesn’t make it true Roger! Lol! What an elementary tactic!
Sure. He should have qualified that statement with “…everybody with any common sense knows…..” I have said it before & will say it again, economics should be a mandatory course to be taught in all public high schools. Despite the widespread ignorance regarding economics, it is pretty widely known though that Keynesian approaches should be abandoned.
Alot of highschools do teach economics, but being as most public schools are run by union progressives, take a wild guess what economic theory they are teaching? I’ll give you three guess, but I’m pretty sure you’ll only need one.
As a teacher who just watched kids file out the door from an Econ class, I have a shocker for you- I cover- and the states mandates that I do- both. So does every Econ class I have ever heard of at the High School Level.
I’ve actually talked to several highschool kids who come into my clinic for training that have never heard of hayek or austrian economics, but they have all heard of keynes. I guess DODDS schools have a different standard than yours.
George is correct. My high school economics class covered both Smith and Keynes. It was the first time it really occurred to me that perhaps I ought to vote Republican, because HOLY CRAP those Keynesians want to take my money! (and this was in high school when I didn’t even have money–but I saw a dismal future approaching)
It’s pretty widely known that…. ROFL! Oh really, by who?
dicis, ideo te
(he speaks, therefore he is)
True; Kruggles, for one, doesn’t know it.
Is that like “the widely discredited supply-side economics”? Both sides use the rhetorical device.
Irrespective of what anyone thinks of Romney, he handled that absurd situation beautifully. The left wants to frame the discussion and make riduclous things stick simply because they continue to harp on them. Unfortunately, for a large swath of the public, this is an effective way to paint conservatives badly.
I disagree. Even my 84-year-old Catholic mother-in-law, who voted Democrat all her life, would see through this one.
I wonder if George will get an invite to interview Romney as either the candidate or the winner? Stephanopoulos was shilling for the DNC.
“Stephanopoulos was shilling for the DNC.”
Worse, Stephanopoulos was shilling directly for Obama, who he worked alongside of at Harvard’s Saguaro Seminars [1997-2000].
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2012/01/08/is-this-why-stephanopoulos-ripped-gop-candidates-previously-undisclosed-ties-to-obama-activists-who-promoted-presidents-career/
In reality this is merely a “dog-and-pony” show put on by We The Elite People of Washington DC’s culture of corruption.
While this “smoke-and-mirrors” was going on, two important things happened in both Senate and House of Representatives…1)NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). This vote by 40 Senate Republicans + McConnell and House Republicans numbering 190, sealed American’s freedoms forever more. The 5th Amendment…without process of law and the 6th …right to speedy and public trial are completely taken away from every American. America is now a dictatorship. 2)Adding insult to injury, Dodd-Frank portion of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is soon to be up and running with Mr. Cordray at its helm.
What’s this mean to me, one asks? Well, every mortgage, credit card and financial product in the USA and its territories is now linked to the Treasury and Administration officials. You have lost the right to Habeus Corpus and soon both Senate and House will vote to confiscate every weapon in We The Peoples possession.
If this sin’t enough: 1) a dictatorship, 2) loss of all freedoms and 3) confiscation of all weapons…then try this one, a centralized, command, top down economy (soviet-style). If Entitlements are important to ALL Americans now, don’t look too hard…they’ll soon be a thing of the past. POOF! All gone!!
This is We The Elite People’s Washington DC’s culture of corruption in action.
RNC, DNC, MSM and Wall Street are all on board with this unfolding planning. So, either stand up and fight for We The People’s rights or watch Snooky and American Idol. God Bless America. Marxism/leninism are moving at warp speed.
And its all coming from Washington DC’s culture of corruption. The Titanic is sinking folks. Life boats are the only hope for salvation. Those States not seceeding will assuredly go down with the ship. Start acting now to save We The People’s States. Man The Life Boats!Amen!
“RNC, DNC, MSM and Wall Street are all on board with this unfolding planning.”
And that pretty well sums it up for me. The jockeying for power and opportunity to put their hands in the government cashbox and loot our tax dollars for themselves and their cronies is what you are seeing – yet again. Whether it is the DemocRATs stuffing Fannie and Freddie with their buds and pals to cash in and kick back some much desired campaign cash (the unions are no longer the only ones doing that) or the RINO Republicans doing the same with military and other government contractors, the game is the same.
I well remember the 2007 immigration fiasco when the RINO class began hurling Liberal style invective and accusations against those who opposed their hearts desire (cheap labor for business, driving down wages, potential new class of heavily dependent Lib voters, ad nauseum) and you have some idea of what We the People are now up against. The corruption of the entire federal government is now fait accompli, and the MSM is just their subservient handmaiden. This isn’t just about Marxism/Leninism being established by Leftists, it is also just as much about the concentration of power in a central federal government that regards We the People as the enemy because we are still beyond their control. And that idea permeates both the Left and now the RINO-right. In fact both the Left and the RINO-right are in full agreement when it comes to the need to control We the People and our ability to gather and organize, and that is why they cooperate to destroy the freedom of the internet, among other things.
Facists, whether they lean Left or Right, are still Facists.
This is why the republican party is unable to get traction with many american voters. The MSM is a shill for the Democrat party yet we still see the RNC giving them a sense of validity by allowing them to moderate nearly all of the Primary debates. Come on the MSM is populated by Democrat party strategists, and children of Democrat leaders, and the RNC still feels the necessity to pander to them like they are even remotely relevant in the New Media world. They would do well to rethink their strategy and give these debates to news agencies that would allow them to talk about issues important to their base, not to a bunch or progressive shmucks who will shill for the chosen one by deflecting attention from real issues and problems with half assed gotcha journalism crap.
When will we see the PJ media/Breitbart primary debate. How about the Daily Caller South Carolina primary debate. The National Review. No instead we get the MSNBC debate are you F’in kidding me?!
> The MSM is a shill for the Democrat party yet we still see the RNC giving them a sense of validity by allowing them to moderate nearly all of the Primary debates.
That’s the part that’s hard for me to understand about Republicans. No matter how many times the cool crowd spurns and belittles them, the Republicans keep making overtures and forgetting that, in such debates, they’re just there to make sport for them. Both sides see it the debate venue as an arena, but in the vision of the mainstream media, the sport being played is Republicans vs. lions.
But some good comes of all this. By the time the real campaign is here, hopefully, the candidate will be inoculated against saying something stupid or just standing there in his best deer-in-headlights imitation.
And as a lagniappe, has any Republican in these debates looked as stupid as Mr. Stephanopoulis made himself look?
It would be hard to look that stupid. I think Rick Perry came close, which is too bad, because he’s actually pretty savvy.
The “Republican” attitude toward the MSM is easier to understand if you think of the GOP as divided into two distinct sections. There’s the “elitist establishment” section – that grew up and went to college with many of these same MSM types, and sees the world from a similar outlook. And there’s the “rank and file” section – which sees their views and beliefs insulted and belittled by the MSM. The “elitists” see nothing wrong with their friends in the media running the debates. The “rank and file” recognize the MSM as their mortal enemies, and wonder why GOP candidates put themselves through these dog and pony shows. The “establishment” is using the MSM to weed out those candidates who aren’t glib semi progressives like themselves (see: Romney)in the expectation that the “rank and file” will fall into line after all the “rank and file” candidates (see: Bachmann, Cain, Palin, Perry, etc.) have been eliminated.
“When will we see the PJ media/Breitbart primary debate.”
I’ve been posting about that in these pages from way back. That is the logical venue! Let’s use freedom of speech while we still have it. With the internet, they can be live streamed as well as archived and available for a limited time for free.
Ball in your court, gentlemen.
Maybe as constituents we are not leaning hard enough on the RNC. The question is have they simply not thought of it, or are they actively passing on the idea of courting new media for the debates. I think thats a question that needs to be answered. Maybe someone working at a new media outlet, like say Roger Simon, should be getting answers to these burning questions and publishing it. That way, we the people can start making our demands known. Are you listening Roger?
I have trained the young’uns (even the 7-, and 8-year-old) to respond to the RNC’s calls here, by saying “Oh. I’m sorry, we don’t like Mitt Romney” and then hanging up. (The whole family refers to it as the “Romney National Committee”)
Somewhere, Edward R. Murrow is weeping…
It is oddly telling that no, zero, zip, zilch, nada new media have yet to host or even participate in one of these fiasco’s.
Milquetoast coverage from a disparaging old media and pop culture that believes “boxers or briefs” is pertinent.
We are doomed.
Obama will be re-elected.
Its more than odd. Its absolutely mind boggling. Most conservatives get approximately zero of their news from ABC, NBC, or CBS. CNN maybe. They actually had the best debate, and at least paid lip service to objectivity by inviting the Tea Party Express to sponsor the debate. So why does the RNC continue to grant them any relevance, and at the same time ignore all the major online news sources that most conservatives actually look at for their news. I’m sure Roger Simon wouldn’t pass up a chance to moderate a Republican primary debate, or Andrew Breitbart. I would actually pay to see a debate moderated by Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Come on! That would be the greatest debate ever!
Yeah, what’s up with that? Michael Steeledropped (former head of RNC as of 4 days from now) should have been fired a long time ago for incompetence in this regard. I’d like to see questions asked by Andrew Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter over those drooling ABC-tards.
You’re a year late. Reince Priebus became head of the RNC on January 14, 2011.
I would love to see a debate where the moderators were Glenn Reynolds, Rush Limbaugh, and Greg Gutfeld.
Actually, a debate among Glenn Reynolds, Rush Limbaugh, and Greg Gutfeld all by themselves would be worth the price of admission.
I saw that exchange during the debate. The world is literally falling to pieces, the Euro is about to collapse (taking us with it), the “Arab spring” has turned into an Arab nightmare, Iran is about to get a nuclear bomb, Pakistan is about to be handed to the Taliban (along with Afghanistan), our national debt has exploded, and our economy is in lousy shape, and George Stephanopoulos is concentrating on contraception? And the people at the network news wonder why they are losing viewers by the millions. I, for one, have not even seen them for many years now. Now I remember why I left.
Yes, the world is a mess. We are in retro-1939…
…and Simon says FDR was one of the greatest presidents for bringing on WWII by forcing a recession into a depression and maintaining the depression for 10 years by warping Keynesian theory.
And sweet Georgie should have taken Romney’s bait on same sex marriage, as he certainly is for it.
The only surprise in Stephanopoulos’s behavior is that anyone was surprised by it.
By elevating Catholic teaching on sexual matters to the forefront of his campaign, Rick Santorum gave the Democrats and their media sycophants an opening. They were bound to exploit that opening, especially since it has far juicier implications than dry chat about economics, fiscal policy, and the wisdom and Constitutional limits of federal regulation of business.
Santorum is guilty of having saddled the campaign in this fashion. It doesn’t matter that he’s perfectly sincere about his convictions. It also doesn’t matter whether our overall national attitude toward sex and procreation is important to the nation’s future. (Full disclosure: I think it is, but although I too am a Catholic, I disagree with Santorum both on priorities and policy specifics.) The election will turn on economic subjects and whether the electorate considers the GOP’s stance to be more credible than that of the Obamunists.
Terrible things have been said about Santorum in recent days. There was no justification for any of them. Yet his senseless veering into an area traditionally fraught with political peril for conservatives has gone un-criticized.
Sorry, Senator. You shouldn’t have done it. The repercussions will last a while…and we’ll have you to thank for them.
I don’t think anyone was terribly suprised that a former democratic strategist would avoid asking questions that might allow Republicans to point out all of Obama’s failed policies. What is suprising is that the RNC continues to debase themselves by pandering to these “News” agencies. There is a massive disconnect between the Republican leadership and their constituency. Every Republican in the country outside of D.C. knew what that debate would be like. For some ungodly reason the RNC didn’t. The big issue is that there are a limited number of debates left in the primary where the candidates can set themselves apart on real policy issues, then it will be all big debates between Obama and the candidate chosen. Instead of choosing venues and sponsors who will give the candidates time to speak on real issues, we are stuck with George Stephanopolis asking questions about contraception. Unless the RNC gets its crap together, we are doomed.
Look on the bright side. Millions (or hundreds of thousands) of left leaning Obama voting retards watched George make a fool of himself on national tv. They gotta be asking themselves what George’s point was since Mitt made him look rather stupid.
Most on the hard left can’t be swayed, no matter how retarded George looked. They have blinders on that make it impossible for them to see how ignorant and tone deaf their leaders are. Hard line Dems were probably going “ooh, you see that Mitt was afraid to answer the question. What does he have to hide?” On the other hand I’ve found that many african americans when you talk to them are very receptive the the conservative/libertarian message. They understand the issues and agree on the substance. Most are just conditioned to believe that Dems are the only ones looking after them. I think a little outreach goes a long way. Republicans are way behind the curve on that one.
“Outreach”? That’s still code for “free” stuff & special treatment, isn’t it? Yeah, we definitely don’t do enough “outreach.”
No it means getting out and engaging people. Getting your message and philosophy out. In my job, I’m in constant contact with different people from all over the country, and all backgrounds. That gives me a unique opportunity to engage people in conversation about the issues that we face as a nation, and present a view that they probably haven’t heard before. I’m shameless in using it too.
I’e found that if you strip away the rhetoric, and anger, and get right down to the numbers and facts, its easy to get people to listen. Thats the type of outreach I’m talking about. Person to person engagement. Also, getting into a discussion with some one who disagrees is not a bad thing. That just allows you to hone your argument and an opportunity to hear things from the other side. Its easy to get riled up by pundits who foment discord and anger at the “other side” I’ll admit, I can be as much a victim of this as any one else, but sitting face to face with another person in a normal setting makes it easy to put aside the anger and really talk issues. You’d be suprised how receptive most people are when you do. This is not all people though. Some people are so stuck in their views that you can’t present an issue with out WWIII breaking out.
HOW DARE HE HAVE VALUES!!!!
Dude, it doesn’t matter who you are, if you’re not a left-fascist, the press will paint you as a repressed prude wanting to put gays in camps and have massive book bonfires. The press lies, and will make up lies to support their politics.
What would be the down side of punching the MSM in the nose, figuratively. Right now the MSM is operating on stealth mode. They are totally democrat media, 24/7! I think a well crafted attack, like Gingrich used on the anti Catholic bigotry, undresses this corruptness of the press. I see no downside in that!
BTW the next primary debate will be sponsored by Media Matters for America and Center for American Progress….
> Unless the RNC gets its crap together, we are doomed.
Yeah, well, don’t hold your breath. The RNC wouldn’t know a clue if Vanna White hand-delivered one.
lmao. No kidding.
Roger, I have learned different lessons. One is that only Newt is able to redirect an attack by the mainstream media goof and score big points in a way that can persuade, while also exposing the stupidity and hypocrisy of the media. Second, I have learned that Mitt Romney is genial and talks nicely, but he cannot produce solid evidence of any significant conservative accomplishments. He is in the mold of Bob Dole and John McCain in terms of his approach to the opposition – he would collaborate, not oppose. And Ron Paul is a dangerous person who, if interested in running, should be running as a third party, as he has no relationship to speak of with the Republican Party, which he detests more than he detests Obama. And Rick Perry, who has solid achievements shows the ridiculousness of this process, which prizes media performance over actual results. Complete insanity. Hopefully, either Newt or one of the Rick’s prevails, or we are headed for a fiasco. The only good electoral results of the past four years have come via the Tea Party. And I can tell you the Mitt Romney is the opposite of what the Tea Party is all about.
A more honest transcript of the Saturday “debate”:
http://thekencarroll.blogspot.com/2012/01/abc-gop-debate-reveals-abcs-positions.html#more
I’m glad you enjoyed my take on the debates and thanks for posting the link.
Check in often as I post several times each week.
Ken
I, too, have been wondering why—over and over again– the Republicans have given the Democrats and their wholly owned MSM the opportunity to stage one of those rituals where the candidates have to pass through a gauntlet of their club wielding enemies, getting half beaten to death in the process.
And I am heartily sick, too, of smarmy, sneering, condescending “moderators” having free rein to lob set up questions, build in assumptions in the questions they ask, and to generally use every dirty trick in the book to pit one Republican against another, to “step on their messages,” and to generally make each candidate look crazy or way too radical, in a format that only allows 30 or 60 second “sound bite” answers to questions on issues that are often of immense complexity.
I have heard the rationale for this i.e. that such a slug fest weeds out the weaker candidates, and is a rehearsal for the general election, where this sort of attack by the Left will be routine, but I ain’t buyin’ it.
Every minute spent beating up on the other candidates (presuming that you don’t want to beat up on them and, instead, want to talk about your proposals and your “vision” for this country) is a minute lost that could have been devoted to criticizing Obama and laying out the case for a Republican agenda. Every minute spent answering gotcha questions posed by their enemies is a minute lost that could have been more productively spent by Republican candidates answering much more intelligent, fair, honest, and relevant questions from more impartial moderators. Moderators who are, frankly, unnecessary. And, by the way, spare me the questions plucked off the Internet, that are supposed to represent what the people want to know; who, after all, selects the questions that are to be asked?
Republicans should have arranged for the new media to have carried these debates, and to have made them moderator free, lengthy debates in which candidates could talk for extended, half hour or hour segments on a series of major topics like national security/foreign policy, the economy, the role of government, State’s rights/the Constitution, or entitlements.
Don’t try to tell me that this present set up is serving Republicans well, or is presenting their proposals and candidacies in the best way possible, cause it ain’t.
These “debates” as currently formulated and run are a stupid, unnecessary, voluntary gift to Obama & Co., an unforced error and televised Japanese Seppuku.
The bottom line is that Romney was deft in his handling of George. The underlying “right to privacy” issue, which righties say was manufactured in Griswald, is actually, I would throw out there, natural law which they DO believe in. Takes me back to the Bork hearings.
D-White, ever catch up on that “tainted” thing?
The Laws of Nature indicate that if you sit on a Pick It Fence long enough…
Hey, are you breaking out the Romney Mask again?
“Tainted”?? I recall a few tainted responses from you; that’s about it.
Yes, I will probably be voting for the Mittster in the general and taking fire out there on picket duty from both the right and the left. That feels about right.
clintonopoulous was simply executing the strategy of the left– attempt to make any one other than obama look extreme in some way– the vehicle for this is usually via the “social” issues and it will be one of the chorused themes in the next year
as for the republicans and the dunderheads making decisions on behalf of the entire party- they seem to suffer from the political version of the stockholm syndrome in which the subservient are so screwed up in the head the only desire is to please their dominators
When Obama said, ” My muslim faith .”, Stephanopoulos immediately redirected
Obama and never investigated the most important admission of any politician in US history. The reporter is not stupid but anyone that thinks he is anything other than a whore with TV access certainly is.
In the midst of all this (justified) fussing about the three-ring circus atmosphere of these debates featuring liberal shills asking irrelevant, stupid questions, one thing has yet to be mentioned: It’s all a quest for ratings. Ratings, of course, equal money. That’s really what it’s all about (while they strive to make our candidates look like idiots, of course).
It sounds like Stephanopolis was just frustrated because last night he couldn’t find a condom when he needed one.
I anticipate that it will be said that, while a lot of people still watch the MSM and will be exposed to Republican candidates and their ideas and proposals, many fewer potential voters would have tuned into the new media to see debates on their websites.
The problem with this argument is that the MSM itself staged many of these debates at odd times, at times when they competed against things like major football games, and that it appears that not all of the 12-15 debates so far were carried on the major TV channels or were readily available without searching them out–all of which limited MSM viewership.
What I saw was a new “Mitt Fit”
Testy, and ignorant, was the former governor of Massachusetts.
GOP can not trust Romney on judicial appointments if he is this ignorant.
Dems are going to have fun with this level of complete ignorance, and another “Mitt Fit”
I am no fan, but, Bravo, George Stephanapoulos! And, for once, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is 100% correct in how she frames her critique.
How can Mr. Romney claim he has a Harvard Law degree, and is so smart if he has NO CLUE about 1965 SCOTUS Griswold v CT.
Mr. Romney has no clue that almost every state in the USA had Comstock Laws starting in the 1880′s that banned contraception???
It took until 1965 and the SCOTUS to FINALLY make it legal for doctors in Connecticut to prescribe contraception to married (man+woman) couples.
Testy, and ignorant, was the former governor of Massachusetts.
The phrase “Banned in Boston” was coined when Margaret Sanger was arrested and dragged off the stage of a theatre, by the Boston police, for speaking about contraception, maybe about 1920.
GOP can not trust Romney on judicial appointments if he is this ignorant.
Dems are going to have fun with this level of complete ignorance, and another “Mitt Fit”
And, I am not even a lawyer, nor a constitutional scholar. Discovered the history of the very-Victorian Comstock Laws that made contraception a criminal offense while doing a grad school U.S. history paper on how very prominent Manhattan Republican women supported Margaret Sanger’s fight to get the New York legislature to repeal their Comstock Law from 1916-1925. Failing to get the law changed, these Republican women helped Sanger develop her judicial strategy that culminated in 1965 Griswold v CT.
GOP can not trust Romney on judicial appointments if he is this ignorant.
Dems are going to have fun with this level of complete ignorance, and another “Mitt Fit”
For once, Mr. Simon, you really missed the point of what happened. Watch the video on mute, step back, and ask yourself if Mr. Romney has the temperament to be President. Only CEOs get away with THAT level of blustering insecurity.
You have stumbled upon an undeniable truth of conservative, it seems.
What conservatives call “activist judges legislating from the bench” is simply the judiciary dragging society kicking and screaming into modernity because elected politicians are unable to do so.
And elected politicians are unable to do so because they answer to the people.
And the people are ignorant, prejudiced, violent and religiously insane.
ROFLMAO. Is that you, Lovely Earth? That’s the best lampoon of liberal arrogance I’ve read in a while. Thank God those people don’t reproduce any more.
Was that the same Margaret Sanger who founded the Negro Project to stop the ape-like black people from reproducing. I thought so.
Are you a eugenicist like Sanger?
With all due respect, you think too highly of a law degree. As an attorney only 3.5 years removed from law school, I promise you that I do not remember the names and/or holdings of cases that do not 1. have a bearing on my daily practice or 2. hit on one of my areas of scholarly interest.
When I heard that contraceptives are mysteriously a campaign issue now, I immediately thought, “Did someone SERIOUSLY ask about Griswold? How is that even RELEVANT?” But then again, I am interested in Griswold because I am very interested in Roe v. Wade, which came shortly thereafter. I can also cite some copyright and trademark cases for you by name, and various other major holdings–but not every major holding, and not even every holding within my spheres of interest or practice. It is unreasonable to ask anyone–attorney, judge, or otherwise–to immediately list every case, ever, that created some kind of precedent. In the real world, if an issue arose, the person could just log into WestLaw and look up the cases. It is completely unnecessary to memorize cases when there is a whole database right there.
(I am not a Romney supporter (actually, I am no one supporter right now)–I just had to set the record straight before random people start asking me about every case under the sun because I’m a lawyer and I should have every case, ever, memorized)
You know, it’s a rather well-known case. We wouldn’t expect you to be familiar with, say, Austin v State of Florida. But Brown, Pierce, Griswold, Kelo, etc? Kinda big.
The fact is that Mitch Daniels had the right idea. Leave the social issues for later, and focus on the ecomony. Thats the winner for Republicans, and as long as hard line social conseravatives like Santorum chum the water for the MSM, these type of questions will continue to pop up. Santorum needs to go away. I would barely call him a “conservative” He’s fine on spending other peoples money, and telling other people how to live their lives. He just wants to spend it on differnt things, and boss you around in a different way. He should have faded long ago, and it will be a disaster for the US if he wins the nomination. He has less that zero chance of beating Obama in the regular election. He will completely alienate moderates and independants, and drive them back under Obamas wings, and once again tarnish the fiscal conservative brand with that compassionate conservative BS.
You’re OT; I was merely responding to haruka’s assertion that a lawyer shouldn’t be expected to be familiar with a case as big as Griswold.
But I’ll respond; Roe was a huge federal intrusion into the abortion question. Before 1973, states had different abortion laws. Some states allowed it, some had restrictions, some banned it. PP gets a lot of federal funding (Gov. Daniels has defunded PP in Indiana, of course-kudos to him!). So yes, I’m all for the federal government butting out of the abortion business-Roe is generally accepted to be bad law and needs to be overturned; is that what you’re advocating? Or is it just that you want YOUR kind of government intrusion? I think you’ll find that most of us pro-lifers would welcome a respect for the 10th Amendment.
Of course they’re big–but not relevant to everything. If you spend all of your time practicing one type of law, there is a pretty good chance you forget a lot of other stuff. I can’t remember the name of a single case from Conflict of Laws, even though I use the concepts at least once a month. I can’t even remember the name of the famous tort case about the explosion on the train platform (I am purposely not looking it up so I can say that–I really do forget) even though I practice tort law literally every day. I’m being completely honest here: I remember some cases that interested me specifically and some that had a huge effect on the law (such as International Shoe), but not even all of the important ones, much less the less important ones. I’m no Romney fan, but I can’t hold this against him,
Althouse (an actual con law professor) has a play-by-play analysis that I found enlightening: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/01/did-romney-who-went-to-harvard-law.html
Okay, and I guess I’m splitting hairs, but you don’t come across as a very impressive lawyer when you protest that you shouldn’t be expected to remember a court case that made big news. That’s all.
I’m surprised you didn’t comment on that fat head Diane Sawyer, who hides Obama love behind an obnoxious facade of sugary niceness. What a model of smug Manhattan/Hollywood fatuity.
There’s Diane Sawyer all wrapped up in a headscarf for her big exclusive interview of Arachnidjihad in Tehran a few years ago.
The nasty little twerp A’jad was smiling and laughing throughout, seemed to be making a mockery of his interlocutor as he evaded and non-answered her pompous questions.
Almost as painful as when our gal Nancy Pelosi wrapped herself up in a headscarf to yak with another assassin, Bashar al-Assad in Damascus.
Diane Sawyer. Yes, what a phony, smug, obnoxious limousine liberal she is! That any person with even half a brain can listen to her and her phony emotionalism on the nightly news is beyond belief.
Roger Simon: “But if it does happen, I am relatively certain of one thing. There is one topic that if either party brings it up, he will be deemed a fool: contraceptives.”
New York 2010: ZERO enthusiasm for either gubernatorial candidate.
NY Dems knew voter turnout would be driven by congressional contests.
So, NY DEMS used Senator Kirstin Gillibrand’s sattewide campaign to drive voter turnout in Manhattan, using “protecting women’s reproductive rights” as major theme.
How New York Medicaid is driving the state into bankruptcy was thus ignored in 2010.
The DNC is ALREADY planning same strategy for the 2012 general. There is zero enthusiasm for Obama, and the Dems will use the Senate contests to drive turnout, and they are deliberately running as many woman as they can.
Now the Dems can use “Mitt Fits”, and his ignorance as a Harvard Lawyer who is truly ignorant of SCOTUS precedent (and US history), AND Bain’s “locust capitalism” to destroy Romney.
The GOP is handing the social issue divide on a silver platter to the Dems.
Mitch Daniels was correct on that score – it is the debt and spending!
Amazing how when lefties push their abhorrent crap on the public, they’re never accused of handing republicans the “social issue divide”. The left are the people dividing the country — if they preached real tolerance instead of supremacy, if they respected people’s beliefs and liberty, there would be no “social divide”.
The hour long sit down with just Newt and Cain discussing social security/medicare was great. I read that Newt sat down with Huntsman for another hour long chat.
When, ultimately, there is a republican candidate, I predict Obama won’t agree to hour long (ideally, longer) un-moderated sit downs with that individual.
Obama’s style of BS and verbal obfuscation doesn’t lend itself to actual conversation, particularly actual conversation with some ignorant mortal, like a republican who thinks he’s full of hoo ha.
And it’s hard to get the TelePrompTers in between the overstuffed chair and the floor lamp.
1:Recall 2010 midterm elections. 2:Rethink leftist posts.
well done Roger
..still I think the main thing here is that there is no conservative venue and precious few conservatives vying for the job of president. (FOX NEWS IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE OR BALANCE NETWORK)
lots of republicans but no conservatives.
there is only one way to deal with this. the marxists need to be confronted at every turn and relentlessly. AND ABOVE ALL THE CONSERVATIVES NEED TO STOP TRYING TO DEBATE THEM. IT IS POINTLESS AND COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.
pj and a growing number of blogs are the only conservative voice.
“(FOX NEWS IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE OR BALANCE NETWORK)”
Ain’t that the truth. They give us ‘just enough’ to make us think they are the beacon of conservatism and truth for conservatives. But it just isn’t so. Take Hannity for instance – who thinks that all this infighting between the republican candidates ‘is a good thing’. Far from it – all it does is pit Newt against Perry against Santorum etc. It’ll be easier once Perry gets out – he’s got about 2 weeks left before pirouetting back to Texas. This infighting dilutes the conservative vote and gives Romney the edge by a default. The ABR (anyone but Romney) vote is split 3 ways. Santorum’s success in Iowa is no coincidence.
Just like in the cartoons – all Romney needs to do is pound on the next head that pops up – and in the meantime keep his ‘lead’. Not a majority lead but a lead non the less.
On that note I find it hard to figure out why Stephanopoulos attacked Romney like he did. Isn’t the MSM in bed with the RINO Romney in order to expel the more conservative candidates? I’m puzzled by what George did. Romney should know that should he gain the nomination that the gloves will come off and he’ll find out just how much the MSM loves him – just like Dole and McCain did. And he won’t even get a reach-around.
Roger, a couple thoughts come to mind…
The Republican Party’s inability or unwillingness to control the debate process is perfectly in lockstep with its performance governing the nation. Go along, get along and take your pat on the head for being a “pragmatic” political adversary.
With the upcoming release of Iron Lady I was telling my kids that she was a very special person and sent them a few links to Maggie at Prime Minister’s Questions (or whatever it is called). She’s brilliant — and we need a similar forum.
If you have coherent prinicples they will come out in this arena. Barack would struggle mightily.
The bigger question is “what will we do with the commie media when the dems are expelled?” Once we are rid of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the media will return to turning over rocks and examining every transaction and minute of history. They’ll make the Republican government miserable. They’ll turn non-issues into major tempests. They’ll do the things they refused to do as “objective journalists” when the Kenyan was in office.
What are we/can we do about it?
Indict all the corrupt dems who have just lost their elections for what they got away with while the MSM looked the other way. The MSM will then be forced to defend them, taking up time and effort that would otherwise be spent lying about the new reps in office.
The reason that it is run the way it is run…is because leftists own old media and we are POW’s (Prisoners of Washington), putting on a show called Slogan’s Heroes.
We dance to their tune…and they torment us, because they can.
The overt attempts to give our candidates “wedgies” (trip them up on imbecilic “wedge issues”, so that moderates, independents and uncommitted voters will be turned off by “extremism”) number in the hundreds every debate. Even our side miss many of the subtle ones.
Getting a Republican to go off on a social issues tangent…fills them with glee.
Getting them to fight with each other is like trainers in dog fighting.
And, my dear friend, Roger..why will we continue to allow this? Because the independent voters don’t get their news from anywhere else. Unless and until we address this issue in a manner more solidified as a “team” (non-leftists), more organized, more FRONTAL…this enormous advantage will continue to play itself out in a rigged manner favoring the leftists.
Who will organize the non-leftist media? Who will stand up to the propaganda machine captors? Who will put together a collage of ALL the ways great and small that non-leftists get mistreated, while leftists get PROMOTED? And show it to the country and the world as Exhibit A of the rigged American process?
Nobody will. Republicans are the Louie Zamperini of the American political rigged process. I just don’t know if they can stay Unbroken for much longer.
….it may be the leftists that own the media. no reason for a conservative to play ball with them.
that was a test and they failed.
It’ll take a “cat whisperer” to organize the media.
Here’s a candidate:
http://www.thecatbehaviorclinic.com/
I am still waiting for the first Republican candidate to take one of these questions and respond: That is a very good reiteration of the DNC talking points, I am quite sure that President Obama would be very proud of you. Now, if we could just discuss what the American people are interested in, why don’t you try another question.”
Absolutely agree. The MSM still operates under a veneer of objectivity. These candidates need to rip that veneer off and expose them for the partizan shills they are. I do not see any downside in doing it?
And I don’t see anyone other than Newt calling them out.
I’d love to see Newt in debate with Obama.
Too bad it ain’t gonna happen.
Unfortunately, MItt was not deft-footed enough to say something like:
“George, that is a really strange off-the-wall question. We have our country $14 trillion in debt, huge unemployment, a clash between a culture that wants an entitlement society and a culture that wants an opportunity society, a clash between a group that wants a government of very few rules ridgedly adhered to vs a group that wants many many rules capriciously enforced. And in the world we have a new regime in North Korea, sabre-rattling by Iran, collusion between Pakistan and the Taliban, Europe in a monetary crisis, Mexico in the grips of a drug war, and an immigration crisis along our southern border. And you want to ask me about contraception? I think what the American People are really interested in hearing about is …[change subject to something relevant]“
I know of one High School Economics Teacher that does not teach Keynesian Economics other that what it is and why it has never worked. Thjat would be me. I teach Free Markets and the glories of Capitalism.
When I am teaching Government I teach the Constitution and what is written rather than what I WISH was in it. I cover all the Amendments even the 2nd.
But then again I live in Texas, am NOT in a Union, and believe in the rule of law.
Yeah, I grew up in Maryland. It was a lonely existence, having common sense and respect for individual liberty in one of the bluest states in the country. Once I finish my service in the Army out my wife and I are moving back to Texas. (she’s a native Texan)
Yassir, your name looks familiar. Did you ever post over at 4 Lane.com? I cannot think of any other places right now that I have seen you, but I have seen you somewhere before.
Some of these moderators come off looking more ridiculous than their questions, which may be a minor side benefit to republicans. The candidates should turn the tables more on some of these idiot questioners.
George Snuffleupagus is as transparent as Chrissy Matthews, the thrill up the leg guy. While relishing the chance to sit in front of a bunch of republicans with some upper hand as a questioner, Snuffle can barely contain himself as he tries to appear professional while looking for openings for his smarmy points.
He seems as thick-skulled as Keith Olbermann.
Four more debates scheduled through the end of January, 2 handled by CNN, one by NBC, one by Fox ?
Starting to feel more like dog and pony shows and that is seriously not in republicans’ favor.
The debates are almost pointless. The memorable moments end up being gaffes or bicker-fests between two candidates, neither of which do much to enhance the process.
Stephanopolous made a fool out of himself with that question, though. As for Sawyer, I can. not. watch. that. woman. Why does she speak like she’s talking to mentally challenged kindergartners all the time? Does she herself need that. much. time. to. search. for. the. words. in. order. to. formulate. a. basic. question? Did the botox go too deep and paralyze her brain?
Roger, “mano a mano” means “hand to hand.” It refers to physical combat, not speech.
There are many reasons for Republicans to reject the conventional format.
The biggest one is proably that by doing so the party would send an extremely loud and stark message to the country that the party that represents more than half of the population recognizes that the media is so biased that it can no longer be allowed to control the public discourse. Of course, that is beyond obvious to every reader of pjm, but it still is not obvious to people, even conservatives and republicans, who continue to get their propaganda from pravda.
The Daily Caller has a piece today with Ginni Thomas and Charles Krauthammer that is priceless.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/08/leaders-with-ginni-thomas-charles-krauthammer/2/
The setup is a bit annoying, having to click through on each topic…but CK hits it out of the park on every issue.
His use of the word “spare” is elegant. We are not doing enough. Not nearly enough. He “gets it”. Do we?
thanks for the link
CK is at his best, but there is one topic I disagree with him about.
He seems remarkably sanguine that conservatives are now the party of ideas opposing liberalism, the party of that refuses to change anything.
I believe, and I think you do as well, cf, that liberalism has become, in your words, small c communists, and that they are on the brink of a victory that will be irreversible.
We aren’t in the midst of the inevitable decline of liberalism as CK appears to believe, we are at the cusp of a fork in the road that, if the wrong fork is taken, will end conservatism forever in this country, and end the country itself as it has existed for 230 years.
I agree 1000%, proreason.
I believe that rampant, runaway leftism has degraded into small c communism and that it has a “protective shield”…the threat of the slander of McCarthyism that prevents non-leftists from attacking it fully or properly.
The “force field bubble” surrounding small c communism allows it to hide in plain sight.
I agree with everything else CK said…in spades.
Those were excellent, CFB. On your question “Do we [get it]? I think many of us do but we are at a disadvantage due to (as CK says) “self selection.” Conservatives tend to go into fields that don’t have a lot to do with activities that surround influencing other people (through the arts, culture, journalism, education, etc.). We may have to wait for the ’60′s radically left generation to move on from the seats of power in places like university, Hollywood & the MSM. These places were not always slanted this far to the left & I think they will not always be. Meantime we must continue discussing these things out in the open where people can hear us. If we change but one mind, we have accomplished something.
bobbcat
Self-selection…and as our dear friend, Roger can attest…”blacklisting oneself” account for a PART OR PORTION of why the leftists are in complete control of the cultural “water coolers” where opinions are “prefabricated”.
At many educational “indoctrination palaces”, you can’t get hired…much less tenure as anything by a raving leftist loon.
In Hollywood, you better keep your non-leftist inklings under tight wraps, lest you be “blacklisted” as Roger knows better than anyone.
In the media, you would be completely ostracized…if you EVER were hired, for having non-leftist leanings.
That’s not “self-selecting” it’s making your politics a “suspect class” with no federal protection.
Have you ever googled “conservative celebrities?” Over 9 million hits. Here’s one. Albeit cons must swim against a tide, you make it sound like it’s a lot more serious than it really is. There is a rising tide of backlash that will only get bigger, IMO. Conservatives are enjoying more exposure on the “new media.”
I stand by my assertion that to a very large extent, conservatives are more commonly found in the private sector versus the hallowed halls of academia, Hollywood & the MSM.
Have you read “Blacklisting Myself” by Roger Simon? I have it right here above my computer on my bookshelf.
It details the experiences by someone who lives it daily. I’ll defer to him.
I think people like Stephanopoulos are so sure of the correctness of their positions that they don’t think anyone can come up with a cogent counter-argument. Hence, they are surprised when Gingrich or Romney easily point out the fundamental flaws in their thinking. Liberals have no rejoinder and are left to 1) repeat their points in a louder voice, 2) resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks, or 3) play the race card.
The bright spots in this series of debates were the AEI-Heritage Foundation affair and the Fox News debates. Smart, well done.
About Keyensian economics: It was the most boring class that I ever took in college; however, it did make sense. Supply and demand curves were an easy way to get the idea across of how economics work. Fast forward to today: My son just took a college course in economics and nothing he had was remotely familiar. It is now taught with a jumble of statics calculations and of all things calculus. It was impossibly hard. I don’t doubt that these new models work but they are almost impossible to understand. I’ll take Keyensian economics with all its boredom any day over this.
Hazlitt wrote a scathing refutation of Keynes, ‘Failure of the new economics. It should have been given equal time, but I suspect it wasn’t.
I think the debates are a cheap substitute for individual advertising. I was tired of them after #2. The candidates are asked the same questions and are given soapboxes from, which they can ‘one up’ their adversaries. The GOP is crazy to give them this opportunity. They are killing each other.
“They should be given a topic for the debate (entitlements, Iran, whatever) and be set free to examine it. Those issues can be discussed at length and in more depth without the interference of media personalities”
that, I can totally agree with.
Step on all of us should return to pimping for Hillary and Bill where he was successful – His abilities as a “journalist” are minimal.
– George; what does your father the Bishop or your grandfather the Bishop say?
The idea of a pre-election debate, whether in the classic style or today’s more casual manner, with only a timekeeper as moderator, makes great sense, as you point out. We should have the opportunity to see the two individuals contending for the highest office in our Republic, displaying their knowledge, defining their principles, exhibiting their reasoning capabilities and their rhetorical skills. But whose idea was it to repeatedly throw all the early challengers for the candidacy, in one party, into a venue directed by adherents of the other party, dedicated to revealing the participants in the worst possible light, quarrelsome, petty and vulnerable? Don’t tell me. It was probably the incredibly corrupted and witless RNC.
And why did the competing candidates go along with it? It has been worse than a waste of time; it has been a gift to the Democrats, gleefully pointing out that the conservative side can only offer a sorry babel of incompetents. Why did they not collectively realize that these were not debates; they were orchestrated arguments and totally counter-productive. We have had a group, all of whom are worthy of high government positions, defending themselves from criticism instead of offering a panel with common concerns and mutual respect, defining the objectives and tactics for defeating the threat of a Democrat/Socialist organization’s openly stated plans to rewrite the Constitution and Change our nation forever. The whole episode comes across as something planned by David Axelrod, who is now keeping his Frontman silent while the Republicans, once more, destroy their opportunity.
The whole “debate” fiasco has demonstrated one thing certainly: there is not a single candidate who can rally the GOP, the T Party and independents to a sound, sweeping victory this November. A squeak- in is the best we can look for. I had hoped that Rick Perryl would rocket, but he just fell over and fizzled. Can we draft Chris Christie or John Bolton?
I just don’t get it. I thought the Republican Party was running a nomination process to select their candidate, but they don’t seem to be anywhere in sight. It’s the media and a lot of others that probably don’t want our guy to win deciding our process.
We do need debates, but they should be where the candidates discuss first hand their plans and goals on the important things. We haven’t heard squat on the important things.
1. Economic Growth – The government can do things to change the rate of economic growth which in turn creates jobs and Wealth. The only jobs politicians create are those that displace another job or jobs in the distorted activity.
Does the candidate have sensible, practical, and realistic plans for real growth.
2. Regulation – The fatter we make government and the more it looks over or requires approval on activities the less we get of #1. Is the candidate for less government or does he want an agent in your bedroom.
3. Revenue – How much and what is its source. Duh TAXES. What percent of GDP should government revenues be, what are the tax rates and rules, how progressive etc. Any politician that wants more than 20% should be sent to Greece.
4. Spending – Every houshold knows that spending should be less than income most years and going on a credit binge will sooner or later crash and burn. Also, borrowing for a major asset like a house which retains value is probably OK. However, buying a BMW when you earn $50K is leathal to your bank account.
How can these same people think that the government can borrow 10% of revenues(say 3% of GDP) year after year without trouble is beyond me. Yet these clowns are borrow 40% of the total budget. It’s like driving backwards on the freeway – crash and burn time.
We need to hear how they will prioritize and make the tough decisions. Probably can’t decide what is to be cut, but how will we determine the the least effective spending and what is essetial.
5. Baseline Budgeting – The baseline must be what whas spent last year, not what we hoped to spend this year. Yes there is population growth, inflation, and changed needs – but explain why the EPA needs a 10% raise but DOD should be cut 20%
6. Foreign Policy – Lets hear the candidates explain their approach to policy issues.
7. Immigration – Important but it should be how the WHOLE issue will be approached, not arguing how high the fence should be.
8. Social Issues – Hey folks, the river is rising, now is not the time to select carpets. But I hope every candidate errs on the side of individual freedom in making those decisions.
Further, what stupid idiots came up with the primary schedule. We will whip along and have a decision by March then do what for 5 months until the convention. Its like a halftime that goes 2.5 days. No momentum.
John Galt
I am with the Texas Patriots PAC, the group that hosted the entitlements discussion with Cain and Gingrich in early Nov. It was broadcast by CSPAN, and it is archived on their website.
We tried to arrange another discussion on the House Republicans’ jobs act between Gingrich and Romney, but their campaigns refused, because at that time each candidate thought that participating in that kind of forum would benefit his opponent.
They don’t care if the forum would help the voters. They only care about whether it will help them win the primary.
They will, however, always join in the “big” national media debates, because those debates will happen unless all the candidates bail out, so skipping one of them is handing their opponents a free opportunity.
Again, CSPAN will broadcast for free any debate that a group can arrange. We could exclude leftist moderators. We could exclude moderators altogether.
But the candidates themselves will refuse to participate unless they think it will help them win.
So blame the candidates, and blame ourselves for not making it more painful for them to refuse.
This was a desperate attempt by the left, before a national audience, to tie Christianity, Evangelism, and Theocracy into a neat little bundle and “pin” this tail on the GOP Elephant.
My God, shades of the 60s with Pat Robertson and Club 700.
If the left is really concerned about a Theocracy they need to pay a lot more attention to recent moves by Islamists and the introduction of Sharia Law into the US.
GOP candidates do not, because they dare not, tell us that defeating Obama will have little net change, save the speed of our decline. The same laws and court decisions in effect now will not be repealed by a Republican president and congress. Obama has misused his office from the worldview of free citizens; but progressives have hacked the Constitution, turning the Federal government into a de facto Unitary state. No Republican president or congress has even attempted the dismantling of that state. Conservatives, after all, wish to CONSERVE the status quo.
The constitution and laws now in place were the enablers of the Democrats’ crime spree of 2009-20012. They will be in place when the Congress and the President are sworn in, January 2013.
The repubs could really change things, for example by actually repealing Obamacare, doing some real cuts to entitlements, or non-defense discressionary, and repealing some of the worste environmental and business regs. Whether they actually WILL is a different story. I agree that merely putting on the brakes, so things get worse at a slightly lower rate than Obama, is no longer enough. Obamas damage must actually be reversed and rolled back, not just stopped. And just getting some tax cuts and some new social legislation wont cut it either. Either the repubs really beleive gov has gotten too big, and are willing to actually roll it back, or they are just a slightly less bad duplicate of the dems.
“Obama’s damage must actually be reversed and rolled back, not just stopped.”
I would suggest a much more radical approach than this. Obama’s damage wasn’t just the result of a electing him president and a Democrat Congress. We have 100 years of progressive Constitutional amendments and State/Federal law. Repealing every statute from the Clinton and Obama administrations won’t affect the worst laws and court decisions of that century: directly elected Senate, income taxes, central banking, gold confiscation, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and a myriad of unconstitutional agencies directing private actions in every business, every home–not to mention the snooping.
My suggestion is simple. Dissolve all three branches of the Federal Leviathan. Start over with a fresh approach. The last convention was in Philadelphia but I think we should think about holding it in Galt’s Gulch.
What! This piece is egregious. The MSM in the U.S. is one of the most trustworthy organs this country has. Fox News is a paragon in the MSM, for example.
I think this underscores how inane these debates have been all long. It’s seems ridiculous to make people distill their thoughts into 90 sec sound bites especially when running for President. The media basically asks all the same questions and the candidates reply with the same answers, except for Mitt, who changes his mind every other minute. Check out multiple choice Mitt.
http://WWW.multiplechoicemitt.com
I agree we should get rid of the moderators, and just replace them with a single timekeeper, whose only function will be to recognize which candidate gets to speak next. No questions are asked by the moderator, instead the candidates ask questions of each other, or simply give their position on an issue they choose, which other candidates can then challenge if they choose.
1. Each candidate gets an equal amount of speaking time at the beginning, with possibly a little extra for the top 3 in the polls. No candidate is allowed to speak unless recognized by the timekeeper.
2. Their clock starts as they are recognized to speak by the timekeeper, and the candidate decides when they are done for any specific response, stopping speaking and pressing a done button to stop their time from ticking. This encourages the candidites to be short and to the point, to save their time for when they really need it. After the speaker presses their done button the timekeeper recognizes the next speaker.
3. Any candidate wishing to speak presses a request button. The candidate that pressed his button, with the least amount of time used so far, is recognized first. This gives candidates an incentive to preserve their time so they are recognized when they want to be, and also to not bother asking for recognition unless they have something really relevant to say.
4. If nobody has pushed the request button, the candidate with the most time left is recognized next. At that point, they will probably want to start a new topic with a statement or question.
5. A candidate also has no time limit for any specific response, other than not wanting to use up their time for future responses. But if a candidate runs more than 10 minutes used ahead of the next candidate, they will be prompted to wrap it up. In the last 15 minutes of debate this will be reduced to 5 minutes. Of course if any candidate uses enough time to get that far behind, once they finish speaking it could be a long time before they are recognized again, since other candidates would have to use enough time so that they again have the least amount of time used.
6. Candidates are free to speak about whatever they wish, and only the other candidates can call them out if they are evading a candidates question.
7. A candidate can also get recognized on a priority basis by pressing a priority request button, which will get them recognized ahead of normal requests, but at a cost of 30 seconds of time. This would typically be used if they have a really big point to make in respnse to another candidate, and aren’t getting recognized by the regular request. Also, if a candidate is called out by name by another candidate, they have the option of a free priority response. But if a candidate has used more time than any other candidate, they can not use the priority button, until another candidate passes them in time used, or they
This ensures a fair debate between the candidates, with no bias from moderators in either questions asked, or in who they allow to speak, and how often any candidate is recognized. The candidates are in complete control of the debate. Each candidate can judge for themselves how much of their time they wish to use up for any particular topic, and if they husband their time properly they can be recognized when the discussion turns to an area of their interest where they can make a good point. No candidate can complain that nobody called on them, or that they were asked timewasting questions, since by pressing their own request button they are actually calling on themselves. These rules may seem confusing, but in reality just amount to waiting your turn to speak, and making your points short and relevant so you can then get called on more often.
George Stephanopoulos should have asked if creating Constitutional Rights through Judicial Review was a violation of Article V of the Constitution?
But of course, no one in the media or Establishment wants that question raised.
“I am interested in the candidates and what they have to say to each other — mano-a-mano — in the style of Lincoln and Douglas. They should be given a topic for the debate (entitlements, Iran, whatever) and be set free to examine it. Those issues can be discussed at length and in more depth without the interference of media personalities who, besides being biased one way or the other, are often more interested in the promotion of themselves or their companies. ”
Truer words were never spoken.
Media personalities and commentators are unnecessary. Having the networks front “debates” is unnecessary. Being exposed to these existing leftist TV networks is detrimental to the Republican candidates. The TV networks are not bringing the debates to the airways to clarify political positions. They do it to distort, as much as they can, the Republicans positions and opinions.
This is where the RNC should be active, if it ever awakens from its sleep.
The debates should be held by the RNC which buys the “air time,” but holds the debates WITHOUT media personality involvement. Asking pertinent questions of the various candidates doesn’t require artistry, only honesty,and not agenda driven.
The polite thing to do would have been to put a condom on Stephanopoulos’s head and shut him up. Some things mellow with age, but not good old George he’s as crazy as ever.