Sadly we no longer live in an Abraham Lincoln or George Washington world. I truly don’t believe such stupid questions would have been asked then—nasty, attacking questions yes, but not droolingly stupid ones.
The dumbing down of students that began in the ‘80s by the teachers unions under the guidance of the Communist Party has resulted in a world where many more people could tell you every contestant in American Idol or Dancing With the Stars than could tell you who is the Speaker of the House.
A large part of the public DOESN’T deserve a serious candidate and those people weren’t watching the debate, but they will hear the MarxStreamMedia ragging on the uptight, nasty Republican who can’t take a little joke. Unfortunately, many of those same people DO vote and do so largely on the free flowing BS from the MSM.
I hate what has been done to us, but it HAS been done and we do have to work within the world we occupy. That doesn’t mean we can’t work to rebuild the world we want.
Maybe in the next debate one of the candidates can be a hero and in the introduction say, “I’m xxxx blah, blah, and I really hope with wars, broke, helping enemies we’re not going to waste time on droolingly stupid questions like deep-dish or regular.”
Head it off at the pass BEFORE they are put on the spot. It’d be extra good if all the other candidates would applaud. Then if the MarxistStream moderator still asks the question, the answer should be, “I’ll take intelligent and pertinent for 400, Alex.” Then if all the others laughed, I think this crap could be finished and the MSModerators would look dopey.
Reagan often deflected crap with humor and wit. It could be done again with good humor but serious impact.
While I agree that most American's don't deserve a "serious" candidate, most of those people don't even vote. When they do vote they vote for the democrat without thinking, because it is easy to be a liberal and being a conservative takes brains.
That being said, you have to number me among those who didn't watch the debate. Instead I watched some old re-runs of King of Queens (which I suspect was more enlightening than the debate itself). I refuse to watch a debate 6 months before the first primary. I think it is insane that these people start their campaigns more than a year before the convention and more than a year and a half from the general election. The smart candidates sat this one out (Palin and Perry). These early debates do nothing but give the enemy a bunch of soundbites and talking points to destroy you early on in the game.
As in horseracing it is never a good idea to take the lead early. You sit back and keep your horses relaxed until you spot the finish line, then you make your move. Palin and Perry are sitting back. Neither of them need the debates as they can book an interview on any station any time just by making a phone call. Other than Romney, the MSM is not taking any of the other candidates seriously, and the fact that they are not being taken seriously can damage your campaign more than sitting out a debate or two can ever do.
You generate interest by keeping your cards close to the vest.
That being said, the whole silly question scenario started when Clinton actually gave an answer to the question "Boxers or Briefs"? He should have simply moved on and asked if anyone else had any questions. He did more to denigrate the office of president by answering that question than he did by having an affair with his intern.
There are questions that are designed to humiliate or bring a candidate down to the level of someone who ought not to be taken seriously. "Regular or Thick Crust" is one of those questions. It should not have even been acknowledge. But then, the whole debate should never have happened in the first place.