The Florida Debate as Political Game Show
From my seat eight rows from the stage, here’s a bird’s eye view of the Florida Republican presidential debate.
Rick Perry’s performance was the most disappointing of the evening. He stumbled and paused when describing Mitt Romney’s history of flip-flopping. It was as if he lost his train of thought mid-sentence. You could actually feel audience support for him slipping away.
Based on Perry’s performance, I predict he will not win the Florida straw poll this weekend at the Presidency 5 event sponsored by the Republican Party of Florida.
Romney came off the most in command and presidential. There is no doubt he has great stage presence, with the ability to take a punch and then give one right back. Romney looked and sounded like a winner and winning in 2012 is what’s foremost in the minds of all the delegates here at Presidency 5.
Delegates are well aware the eyes of the nation are upon them. Therefore, they are serious about making a bold political statement as to which candidate can successfully defeat President Obama. My prediction is Mitt Romney will win the straw poll at Presidency 5 and regain his frontrunner status.
The debate itself was entertaining with all the Google-infused interactivity and personalities galore. But is this really the best way to get to know the candidates? They are forced to give quick snappy answers to important questions and leave voters begging for more. It was truly a sad commentary when the loudest applause line of the entire evening was when Gary Johnson said his neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than President Obama.
Sure, for political junkies this is fun to watch. But seriously folks, this is serious business. Our nation is going down and the world is laughing at our presidential selection process.
Here’s a title for the game show: “ZING-a-thon! Watch politicians attempt to zing their way into the White House!”
No way to run an airline, for sure, but it had its guilty pleasures. Johnson missed his sure-fire follow-up concerning his neighbor’s dogs: “And those jobs didn’t cost a trillion dollars!”
It struck me that you could create a pastiche candidate from bits and pieces of each of the nine and have a truly impressive, “the one we’ve been waiting for” Obama-beater. Romney’s assurance and central-casting looks, Santorum’s command of issues, Gingrich’s smarts, Cain’s inspiring story, etc.
On the other hand, if you created a pastiche of O and Hillary, you’d still have a major lefty bummer. So maybe that’s a consolation.
We need to run it like the NAACP March Madness. One on One matchups, double elimination, winner moves on in winners bracket, loser moves to loser bracket, two finalists made up of winners of each bracket.
That way we get a chance to see each candidate at least twice, and we can give them more than a couple seconds to answer. Should be able to run the whole thing in 4 weeks.
Walt, did you mean to say “NCAA”? Or was this an intentional typo? (Freudian slip, maybe?)
In any case, it produced a funny visual in my mind. Could this be how the likes of Al Sharpton, & Jesse Jackson advanced to their vaunted positions in the Civil Rights hierarchy? Charlie Rangel? Or even the Anointed One?
(Sorry, couldn’t resist. Don’t mean this as a slur, just thought it was funny.)
(NAACP) really the NCAA? Still not right. March madness isn’t double elimination. Lose and go home. Nice try though.
There isn’t any one of the candidates that is an extraordinary one — which is certainly what the country needs. Of course, any one of them would be better than the O or Hillary … but we will need so much more if we are to recover from the brink we are now on.
These debates … they’re boring. Boring in that they do just seem like a silly game show … that we already know what each one has to say … and the jabs at each other are so … empty and foolish.
It’s also a problem of the questions they are asked, with newspeople choosing questions that they believe will be most entertaining, rather than the most substantive … and are the same questions we’ve been hearing for weeks and weeks now. There are so many other issues about which in-depth questions could be asked … so we could get a more honest sampling of the thought processes of each candidate.
I think it’s all pretty sad. It could be so much better.
“It’s also a problem of the questions they are asked, with newspeople choosing questions that they believe will be most entertaining, rather than the most substantive … and are the same questions we’ve been hearing for weeks and weeks now.”
So true! They also have a vested interest in ginning up controversy. Polls and horse races are their bread and butter, which is why a new round of betting commences the day after we finally cast our votes. The longer the campaign season, and the sooner the jockeying begins, the better, from a media perspective. Speculation is cheap “news,” and it’s gotten so bad that even developments abroad are now little more than fodder for “analysis” of how this or that event will effect the election prospects of the President and/or his possible challengers.
The competitive entertainment factor is important, of course, in attracting an audience, as the popularity of Reality TV more than suggests, and there is always something to be learned from a debater’s performance. When it comes to substance, however, I’d like to see the Republican Party take a more aggressive role in promoting all their potential candidates, and thus, the Republican approach to governance — instead of watching from the sidelines while contenders try to tear each other to pieces, with a lot of collateral damage to the eventual nominee and the party, when the general election season actually heats up.
Bead and circuses. How can you expect better, when you don’t.
This is not beanbag. People are suffering. I’ve had enough of this nonsense. We need a president, not a game show host.
It seems to me that there is nothing about these debates that relates to the actual job of being president. The president (AKA “Commander-in-Chief” and “Chief Executive”) needs a certain level of skills. What does debating show about someone’s ability to actually do the job?
If you’re going to be a lawyer or legislator, then debating skills are important. For a president, not so much. I’d prefer someone who has proven management experience. Military experience is good but not mandatory. The ability to gather information to make informed decisions (as opposed to believing you’re the smartest person in any room like Obama) is more important than being quick with a quip on the debating stage.
For that matter, where one went to college and the grades they earned doesn’t have much importance when it comes to actually doing the job. The greatest president of my lifetime went to Eureka College (Reagan). Every president since has been an Ivy League grad and none has come close to Reagan.
Agree with the assertion that none come close to Reagen. Still looking for a combination of Romney communication skills (or better) and Ron Paul honesty, consistency and principles.
With all do respect, I’m thankful you were not the organizer. This is what’s great about America. All of these names are in, and have been in for quiet some time. It’s good to hear all these voices even tough we would like to hear more from them. Go to the internet and find more info. It also makes it hard for the Dems to focus on one republican and tear him/her down.
My sentiments exactly. We;’re seeing things develop without giving the Left a focus of attack. Keep them off their game while letting our strong men get at ease with the Debate that will really matter. It was asked for another Reaganesque figure…well, my eye is on Herman Cain. I’ve listened to him for 5 years (Radio) and always thought “That man should be President”…even though I thought Obummer has ruined it for ANY Black to become President within out foreseeable future. Herman doesn’t have the name recognition (yet)…but listen to him…and you’ll see he’s got the best of Romney and Paul and a few others tossed in for good measure. He is focused and not distracted and very little ego involved here…a humble honest man.
Judy, my pick like yours is Herman Cain, I too have listened to him on the radio for years. It only takes listening to him for a little while to see how intelligent he is, and how much he loves America. What a great president he will make, and I am disappointed in the organizers of the debates who only give him a little time to answer questions. I do NOT want Romney or Perry, and am TIRED of their bickering! Herman Cain in 2012!
Unfortunately that’s why the MSM is ignoring Cain. Obama wouldn’t be able to play the race card on him, he’s far more conservative than Romney, just as successful if not more so, and is an excellent speaker with a sense of humor!
I disagree with you Myra, because the specific issues don’t matter. All of the candidates with the exception of Ron Paul are vastly superior to Little Lenin. History will remember the person who defeated the man who is about to destroy America, not the person who meets the unrealistic expectations of the most conservative fringe in the country.
From that perspective, the winner should be the person who handles himself the best. That is the only real criteria.
So it helps to have a lot of people, all picking at scabs and revealing the personal weaknesses and strengths of the top tier candidates. I do however wish thet they, like Newt, would be more careful to remind the listeners that Obama is the real enemy.
What the debates have revealed is that Romney is stronger than Perry at defending his positions and making his case. Perry could be the second best, but who really knows, since only Perry and Romney get attacked. It’s easy, for example, to love Cain with his dangerous 9-9-9 exercise in roll-the-dice transformation, since nobody challenges it.
I expect Perry to fall by the wayside and somebody else to emerge as one of the top two. Then we will find out if that person has what it takes.
Frankly, I’m happy to learn that at least Romney has the chops to take a blow and respond effectively. I wish Perry were the same, but it’s clear he does not have tha skill set. Sadly, the missing skill set has nothing to do with the ability to government; but alas, a candidate can’t govern if he can’t win.
I’d much prefer Romney was a horrible speaker, then the MSM wouldn’t be looking to him as their easy to beat candidate like they did with McCain (also a HORRIBLE pick) last time. They are just trying to pick the GOP candidate a second time. Do yourselves and the country a favor people, stop supporting or even looking at Romney as a possible candidate so we can get a real one up there.
Do yourself a favor and start realizing that the country is 300+ million people and we can’t have another person who has never had a significant position running it. That eliminates Bachmann, Santoreum, Cain, and Paul right off the bat, because not a one of them has made an executive decision that affects the lives of millions of people in his or her life.
I don’t exclude Newt because he has had roles that approach the responsibility we need.
It’s not kids stuff buddy.
We tried a big talker with no experience last time.
What do you mean ‘we’, Kimosabe? I didn’t vote for the empty suit.
The problems with Obama have to do with what he promotes and the way that he got away with lying– they’re not a result of him not having a “significant” history.
Actually, I don’t think we need debates at this point. I question their value at this stage (perhaps at ANY stage). What I DO like about having a large # of candidates, including Palin in the wings, is that it diffuses the MSM criticism, bias, and influence. There’s no single target for them to gang up on and attempt to destroy ahead of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugz_1Clpsdk (PISA results)
Folks, we fall under Poland in the current PISA rankings, I think it’s time these “debates” tackle the issue of education. the Federal gov’t should, nay NEEDs to be involved because now it’s a matter of National Security.
I would like to hear what the candidates say about Education as it relates to National Security.
great video, very informative. and education as national security, i’d like to think so. national debt is also a national security concern. i for one believe to improve our education class sizes have to be trimmed drastically to 10 students per teacher, if you have to bring in high school students as aids and college students as teaching assistants then please do it.
also, teach languages and music in kindergarten. studies have shown that kids exposed to languages and the arts early on tend to do well in the sciences and math.
Great idea! I just don’t think it goes far enough. A better ratio would probably be 10 teachers for each student. With immediate life-time tenure. I can’t decide whether they should be required to join a union, or if all teachers, everywhere, should be employees of the Federal Government, though. Maybe the best solution would be for them them to be unionized, federal employees, just to be sure that we fix our educational system as quickly as possible.
Yes, the solution is more centralized Federal control over education and mo’ money! mo’ money! mo’ money! Everybody knows that before the Dept of Education was created, Americans got no education at all, or if they did, they did very poorly. Test scores were much lower than they are today, teachers had absolutely no idea what to teach their students, no inventions were ever created in the US, and we weren’t even close to competing with other countries in the global economy.
Myra, this did have a bit of the look, feel and sound of a game show.
And the setup is designed for candidates to try to body slam each other, dog each other and produce soudbites.
The music between segments was faintly reminiscent of Who Wants to be a Millionaire.
So, Who Wants to Be Our President or Slamdog Millionaire would make fine titles for the event.
However, except for political junkies…a starched shirt debate, wonkish and detailed….over a year away from the general election, isn’t going to garner great interest.
This seemed aimed at a market segment comfortable with new media, social media,… interactive and participatory. Not a bad idea frankly, especially because it was the REPUBLICANS who pulled it off.
It is indeed time to winnow the field. Get rid of One Toke over the line Johnson, Captain Smarmy Huntsman and Howard Beale Santorum.
But I would rather have Fox asking all the questions in this setting, than to have the propaganda machine ruining another debate with their bear traps and distortions.
I simply do not understand the thinking of some people. A debate allows a person to see a candidate up close and get a better idea about him or her. I, however, learn about a person, and what he or she believes. I support the person whose values are closest to mine, and who I think has a chance of winning. After this last debate, I get the feeling that some people think that the only real qualification for the White House is winning the debates. Is the best debater going to be the best president even if that person doesn’t share your values?
GW Bush talks like a completely moron, yet he was the best president after 9/11.
Smart people scare me. People who believe in Evolutionism scare me.
She said ‘talks like a complete moron’, not ‘is a complete moron’. Maybe you’re the moron.
Debates used to be debates. They lasted for hours between just 2 candidates.
This is like a ridiculous question and answer-a-thon. 1 minute to answer a question the answer of which our country’s future depends on? How can you learn anything about anyone this way? Waste o’ time.
Naturally all the focus was on the two RINO’s vying for that treasured piece of high ground while Santorum and Cain were ignored. This time around Americans will not be taking the GOP plantation pick so you had better think twice about who you annoint because RINO won’t cut it this time. A fiscal conservative who shuns social policy and simply minds the checkbook would be a dream candidate as that position would fix all the problems by drying up government spending.
A fiscal conservative who shuns social policy IS a RINO. The fiscal crisis is a moral/social crisis. That’s why we always end up with the same ‘fiscal’ problems every few years. Because people like you never get to the root of the problem. You cut grass, it grows back. You take the root out, then you’ve taken care of it for the long-term.
It’s frustrating to se Perry stumble in these “debates.” Of the two frontrunners, he is the one with more substance. Romney has substance, but he was the governor of a small state some time ago for a while. Perry is the current governor of a large, dynamic, and economically succesfull state, and has been governor for 10 years. Perry is also the one who makes noises about states rights and lessening governemtn intrusion. Romney changes his tone depending on which way the wind blows.
Romney has all the time in the world to prepare, as well as past experience cmapigning for the presidency. Perry has a day job where he’s doing the kinds of things that would make him the most effective president we’ve had in a while. This whole process is screwey.
I have a very big problem with Perry’s stance on in-State tuition in Texas for criminal aliens. As a general rule I think that illegals aliens should get no aid for food, health care, housing or education. I do agree to help pay for the cheapest means or transportation home for these despicable criminals.
1. This program rewards illegal behavior.
2. This program puts illegal aliens at a financial advantage over US citizens that are not from Texas.
3. Mr. Perry is heartless to take money from honest taxpayers in Texas and give it to criminals.
A pox upon anyone that supports illegal aliens with public funds
If he does not change this position I will not vote for him in the primary, and will consider any third party candidate in the general election
I agree with you about Perry and this in-state tuition problem. And to pile on, here is my #4: When other candidates called him on this stupid policy, he said they were heartless. That is one of the reflexive liberal arguments, to say that a conservative just doesn’t “care,” and I’m tired of being told that I’m not a nice person because I hold conservative political views.
I had been interested in hearing Perry, but he has said quite enough now, thank you very much.
This.
Dittos to the above two posts. Perry was already on shaky ground with me due to his proselytizing tone. I have now had it up to the proverbial here with Perry over his chit chat about in-state tuition for illegals. This is just so unacceptable it’s not funny. Then to throw in the “heart” comment, alluding to the notion that the conservative view here is “heartless” is just icing on the cake of what a liberal in RINO’s clothing Perry obviously is. I will write in a candidate before I would ever cast a vote for this clown.
I saw Perry morph, before my eyes, into John McCain and in the process lose my support.
I thought the moderators were the weak link in this debate. Time for new blood. I was particularly offended when Perry was given a 30 second period to respond to Santorum’s one minute comment. When Perry started to comment, no moderator objected to Santorum’s repeated interruptions. I have lost trust in all three of those moderators.
I find it rather disturbing and pathetic that Mitt still does not own up to the freedom eroding and financial boondoggle called Romneycare. I lose respect for him because he keeps trying to obfuscate, lie, and skirt the issue. Admit clearly that Romneycare was wrong. Have some integrity, man.
To be eligible for instate tuitiom ilegals must be residents for two years,during these two years, their families paid all of the state taxes like regular residents. Any out of state person could come to Texas establish residency and qualify for instate tuition.
If you are critical of the state of Texas for allowing college admission, what about the common schools?
Perry was critised for his no border fence statement. How do you fence a river? How would the rachers water their stock. A border fence presents a business opportunity. Rent a ladder store.
People who have not goverened a border state should not be so quick to critise.
The fact or fiction of being here for 2 years is not the point. The point is that he endorses taking money from legal tax paying residents and uses that money to reward criminals and the children of criminals. If Illegal aliens can’t pay the same out of state tuition as hones legal residents of other states then let them go home to where ever. If anyone is heartless it is Rick Perry. He endorses using other peoples money to reward criminals.
Along the lines of getting serious, we need to ditch the 15-minutes long gotcha sort of questioning that does nothing to illuminate a canditate’s positions or qualifications, such as that silly “did you mean to say Gardosil is a dangerous drug” nonsense. This sort of bunk is easily handled by day-to-day pressers. I would much rather have heard an answer to something like “You have expressed displeasure with Gov. Perry’s in-state tuition policy; as President what policy would you support nationally with regard to children who were brought into the US by their parents but have since become responsible, other-wise law abiding adults?”
The most important aspect of the next President is that it be someone who will not veto Republican legislation. Second-most is reasonable appoints to the courts as well as department and agency heads. Romney meets these criteria, and as a “moderate” he probably has wider appeal than Perry or anyone else presently on the stage. In the general, if he selects a popular VP slightly to his right, he will be a lock.
Great. Romney. That’ll make sure TSHTF in a Republican’s second term instead of Obama’s.
Gives a creepy new meaning to “four more years.”
How about removing Ron Paul. . definitely not a ‘serious’ candidate either.
Perry was more than a “disappointment” yesterday; I was stunned at his tone-deafness. Anti-corporatism aside (run, Sarah, run!), I just wrote the following to the Perry campaign:
“I do not need to vote for a Republican if I want to support illegal immigration (which includes taxpayer dollars paying for their education). YOU HAVE LOST MY VOTE IN THE FLORIDA PRIMARY. I do *not* want any “BS” response (I’m originally from Washington, DC and worked in the Federal Government for 12 years), AT A MINIMUM a full admission of error for this akin to your public Gardasil statement. YOU LOSE.”
To Me Myself and I.
Since Paul has better poll numbers that Backman and Gingrich, if he went they would have to go as well. The odds on Paul winning are long, but he is third in the pols now, and therefore a serious candidate by any reasonable standard.
Personally I dont mind allowing every candidate there at this stage. Many of the so called fringe candidates had some of the best debate remarks. After we have had 2-3 primaries already, it might be reasonable to exclude anybody who has no delegates. That will still leave plenty of time for debates among just the frontrunners.
You nominate a Big Government Republican establishment candidate like Romney and the Tea Party stays home.
Just saying.
To me it’s all about wh can beat Obama, even if I don’t love everything he’s done.
Oh goodie. I can see it already. The MSM and the Republican party have chosen Romney for us. It’s going to be McCain all over again. Is this hold-your-nose-to-vote c rap ever going to stop?
The first thing they do at these debates is start an alley-cat fight between Romney and Perry so the first half hour ends up being The Democrat Lite Show.
Makes me want to put a bullet in my tv.
“the next debate sponsor should require that all candidates reach at least a 5% national approval by RealClearPolitics in order to command a podium.”
Why would you want to give that much power to a pollster? And I can see the sponsor choosing to limit the number of attendees, but wouldn’t it be better to allow the answers from those representing different pov of the conservative movement, rather than limiting it to the three or four who happen to be ahead or behind at any particlar point in time.
As much as you might not like Bachmann or Cain or Paul, I’d like to have the debates shaken up a bit with answers other than the standard party line. If they can’t handle questions from their own side, they aren’t strong enough for the job.
Why give RealClearPolitics veto power over who we can hear?
The lesser performing candidates will run out of money anyway limiting their ability to get to the next forum’s location.
Why did Romney come in only a weak third? Blame “electable” John McCain as much as anyone. “Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Why did Cain surge to 37% while Bachmann slipped to less than 2%? Because they were drawing from the same pool of voters and those voters have dropped her. Why? Probably her negativity and the refusal to back down from the “Gardisil/mentally retarded” attack. She looked foolish and stubborn.
What is the agenda of Cain voters? Economic growth, tax reform, fidelity to the Constitution, someone who will stand up to entrenched forces in DC. Notice how he backed away from his anti-Muslim statements. Every candidate (except Mitt) makes faux pas. Good candidates recognize them (as for Mitt, Romneycare is worse than a faux pas could ever be — it’s law he signed).
It?s really a great and useful piece of information. I?m happy that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
I am no longer sure where you’re getting your info, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for excellent info I was on the lookout for this information for my mission.
Helpful information. Lucky me I found your web site by chance, and I’m surprised why this twist of fate didn’t happened earlier! I bookmarked it.
Amazing issues here. I’m very glad to peer your post. Thank you so much and I am looking ahead to contact you. Will you please drop me a mail?
It is appropriate time to make some plans for the longer term and it’s time to be happy. I’ve learn this submit and if I may just I wish to counsel you few interesting things or tips. Perhaps you can write next articles referring to this article. I wish to learn even more things about it!
I simply could not leave your website prior to suggesting that I actually enjoyed the standard information an individual provide in your visitors? Is gonna be again continuously to check out new posts