Posted on 01/10/2012 6:12:29 AM PST by IbJensen
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.
I think our PrezBO needs to appoint Diane Sawyer as the permanent Repuplican Dabate moderator as a recess appointment.
She can ask all the questions in that slow creepy soft squishy voice that sounds like she drank a bottle of wine and took several narcotic pills just before appearing on the stage.
She alone could gently sway those dumb angry right-wingers into accepting gay marriage by her cleverly worded questons.
Democrats would never allow themselves to be examined on national TV by someone like Mark Levin or Ann Coulter. I'd like to see Obama and Hillary sit for some real questions from Walter Williams and Mark Steyn.
“I know that no state wants to do it, but would a particular state be constitutionally (U.S) precluded from passing such a law?”
Ref. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
All they were was a forum for the liberals to ‘mine’ for sound bytes. Given enough ‘debates’ and stupid questions, they got all the ammo needed to smear every Republican running.
There should have been no more than 4 debates, moderators if needed chosen by the RNC, and agreed to by the majority of candidates.
All the debate topics should have came from planks in the GOP platform. Everything in our platform should have been covered.
The events could have been aired on C-Span and open to the networks to air if they wished. No MSM control of anything!
We pay for C-Span and PBS, if the bastards refuse to air our debates their funding goes to zero.
Thank you my FRiend. For those interested, - good discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
It’s not as black and white as you might think:
“Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute “an uncommonly silly law”, but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional.”
“The Griswold line of cases remains controversial, and has drawn accusations of ‘judicial activism’ by many conservatives.”
"You're missing the point. We need to leverage Pakistan with our aid, and marginalize Iran by exploiting our own oil reserves". Great answer.
After thinking about this a few days, I have a different take on it. Obama is the democrats love child. Who do they prefer the most on the right? I'll give you a hint, he's a lessor version of there first love; Romney. The people on the right hate it when the left attacks our own and usually runs to there defense. See all the comments from those who say they don't like romney. We see the left picking on one of our own, well not mine, I am one of those who hopes for a third party conservative if Romney wins. Steponusless knew the question was not only stupid, but also targeting. If they really wanted to pick on mittens why not ask why he's so hypocritical on healthcare? I think these people try to play games with us and most of the time we see it, but sometimes they are very devious.
I agree Romney did well with the question. I also liked when he turned to Ron Paul, and said “Let’s ask our Constitutional expert.”
Georgey Stephy is surely not stupid. This question was a trap, plain and simple. One could argue (see my post above), that although silly, it is constitutional. Of course if Mitt would have made that point, the headline the next day would have been:
“Romney Open to Ban on Contraception”
Good for Mitt not to fall for it. Even Paul wouldn’t take the bait. I just wish they would have asked Newt - that would have been fun!!
“He is an obnoxious little twit!”
And I hope he has a large supply of condom contraceptives available because he’s proven himself to be a huge dick.
And the best part of him dribbled onto the floor.
Needless to say; it did not make news. Pathetic; and an answer that Mitt or any of the others, could never grasp; much less share.
(Was furious w/Fox for airing/focusing on; more of the so called 'funny' or 'gamesmanship' answers rather than anything substantive.
There is a travesty unfolding per Newt's candidacy.
Meantime; RNC/GOP embracing; promoting weakness. . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.