Why the GOP debate was so dreadful
REUTERS/Joel Page
Rep. Michelle Bachmann and former Gov. Tim Pawlenty shake hands before Monday's deabte.
That was the worst presidential debate I’ve ever watched. The format was horrible. The candidates can’t debate any issues because they don’t really disagree on anything, which is testimony to the suffocating power of current Republican orthodoxy. The “This or that?” feature was beyond insipid. And John King, who is quite a solid journalist, was a dreadful moderator.
After announcing that there would be no bells, whistles or flashing lights to keep the candidates’ answers within the absurdly short recommended time limits, King instead decided to just start muttering and clearing his throat into his microphone to hint to the candidates that they should stop talking, a hint that all of them cheerfully ignored. King muttered all night, audibly, but barely. When he wasn’t muttering, King was talking. Although he talks very fast, King sometimes spent 30 seconds asking a question that the candidate was supposed to (but seldom did) answer in 30 seconds.
The punditocracy is pretty close to unanimous about who won (Mitt Romney, because no one attacked him so his front-runnerness was unchanged, Michele Bachmann, because she didn’t act crazy) and who lost (Tim Pawlenty, because he didn’t attack Romney and looked timid when he was invited to do so) and Herman Cain (because he didn’t live up to the hype about what a show-stealer he was).
The answer, by almost every one of the seven candidates to almost every question, was pretty much this: President Obama has failed. Everything he has done has been wrong. (Rep. Ron Paul was actually asked whether Obama has done anything right on the economy and he said he couldn’t think of anything. Paul was also one of the pundit-designated losers.)
The solution to almost every problem is for the government to do less, for every tax to be cut or eliminated (former Sen. Rick Santorum wants the capital gains tax cut in half; Cain wants it cut to zero); for federal functions to devolve to the states (Romney even seemed to endorse doing away with federal disaster relief programs for states hit by tornados, floods and such).
Speaking of disasters, CNN tried to humanize the event with a feature called “This or that?” in which the candidate was supposed to make a no-wiggle choice between two pop culture options: Newt Gingrich chose “American Idol” over “Dancing with the Stars.” Cain (who is a former pizza magnate) likes deep-dish over thin crust. Bachmann couldn’t choose between Elvis and Johnny Cash but divulged that she has “Christmas with Elvis” on her Ipod.
So now you know.
A full transcript of the debate is here.
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
27 comments
-
24 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
18 comments
Comments (16)
Eric,
Thanks for the report. You couldn't pay me enough to watch those idiots, but someone's got to do it.
What really makes me want to push a sharpened pencil through my eardrums is that we have another year to go before there really is anything substantive and seriously contentious in the debates.
Do you remember Floyd the barber from Mayberry? The debate reminds me of a collection of Floyd wanna-be's.
The flaccid me-tooism and essentially unchallenged delusionalism and construction of alternative realities is painful to watch and endure.
And more than a year to go.
These "debates" have all the excitement of IBM's Watson computer giving out the answers on Jeopardy, except they're all wrong.
So, remind us again why the media is encouraging these imbeciles by paying attention to what they say. You're wasting your money following them, and our time.
Actually I don't even know where this thing was aired. Was it on regular TV or just on cable? Has anyone seen any ratings, was anyone other than the media watching?
Thanks for the report, Eric. I agree with Paul… and you. It’s not a debate when everyone starts from the same premise. I’ll go further and suggest that just because they’re from Minnesota shouldn’t necessarily entitle Pawlenty and Bachmann to wall-to-wall media coverage in the state, either. Both are hypocrites at levels I never thought I’d see as an adult. One is a failed Governor (leaving the state a multi-billion dollar deficit qualifies as “fiscal conservatism” only in fantasyland), the other an ambassador for American theocracy (speaking confidently doesn’t mean what you’re saying is a good idea). Neither deserves the breathless, uncritical attention they’re getting.
I agree with everything that Eric said, except I don't believe Pawlenty lost because he failed to attack Romney. This group has obviously decided that they're going to spend their time attacking Obama and adhere to Reagan's 11th Commandment for the time being, at least.
No one attacked anyone else on stage and in fact they all went to great pains to point out at the end that they pretty much agree on the issues and the solutions with slight variations. That's what principles are all about.
I don't understand why any democrat would be the least bit interested in watching these debates because they are obviously aimed at the republican primary voters and are intended to showcase the candidates' conservative bonefides.
There was no bidding war around who gets what, no pandering to race-based or class-based demographic groups, no call to tax only one group of wage earners to benefit another group ... in short, this wasn't the formulaic exchange you see in democrat debates.
I would suggest that democrats watch something else until the actual GOP nominee is selected to avoid having to deal with their own intellectually bankrupt belief system of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
You're right, Eric. If that was a "Debate", I'm Donald Duck. Phony, phony,
phony . . .
I flipped over and saw the "American Idol or Dancing with the stars" question. You should check out the book, "Winner take all politics," - it explains this in perfection - obsession with meaningless electoral spectacle and ignoring of the importance of the conflict of organized interests and actual policy - where the rubber hits the road. Not to mention historical ignorance and complete delusion. Never think that TV "journalism" can't get worse - they always find a way.
Right, Eric. King was terrible. The pundits says he was great. I only watched perhaps 15 minutes but those minutes were almost all consumed by King's interminably long questions.
Why such “hate speech” by Paul and Mark? Calling these candidate “idiots” and “imbeciles” reveals more about you than the candidates.
Actually, this debate was far more interesting than watching past democratic debates. Listing to the Democrats trying to “out liberal” the other guy by who could spend more of our children’s and grandchildren’s money on “big government, big education, and big environmentalism” is far more typical.
Listening to the republican alternatives to the current failed policies of deficit and stimulus spending is far more interesting.
I think Joe Biden would think that all the republican candidates were “clean and articulate.”
Ron,
I don't hate them, I merely note that they are idiots.
This was not a debate, but a meet and greet during which everyone did their best to ignore the others, except when it was necessary to piggy-back on the comments of someone else. Paul and Cain seem likely to be the first to go. Pawlenty may not be far behind them, due to his failure to stand behind his Obamney care remarks of the day before. Bachmann slid through with some careful preparation and self-control, but I seriously doubt she can control herself for very long. A bit of the real Bachmann peeped out during her comments on Libya. As for the rest - time will tell.
@Ron Gotzman
Calling out behavior for what it is (imbecilic) is not hateful in the slightest; it is the truth.
It reveals that there are pockets of sane people still living that recognize an imbecile when they see or hear one. That is an ability that needs to be nurtured, instead of leaving it up to "dumb luck", as we see happened with Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, etc.
Tim Pawlenty was the big loser. I read this on the Internet:
*** The biggest loser: Pawlenty: If there was one big loser last night, it was Pawlenty. Coming into the debate, no one raised the prospect of attacking Romney more than he did (with his “ObamneyCare” line). But when Pawlenty got into the batter's box, he didn't even swing; in fact, he struck out looking. After the debate in the spin room, his campaign dismissed that criticism, saying that Pawlenty didn’t give the answer news outlets were hoping he’d give. But there’s one problem with that explanation: It was the Pawlenty campaign that called SO MUCH attention and promotion to the candidate’s dig at Romney before the debate. Either the candidate doesn't agree with his advisers on strategy or the campaign doesn't agree on strategy; either way, that's not a sign of a winning campaign. Seven months from now, Pawlenty could very well end up regretting this missed opportunity. And it underscores the early challenge for Pawlenty: The Minnesota Nice Guy wants to be the tough-talking Tea Party conservative, but he personally just may not be comfortable in that role.
In spite of some previous comments, I think that when you say you'll cut the top tax rates and do away with capital gains tax, dividend tax, interest tax, then you're definitely making a class-based appeal and pandering to the rich.
C'mon Eric, buck up - the next President of the United States was on that stsge!