Today’s Drudge headline – BOOB TUBE: CNN DUPED BY HILLARY PLANT AT REPUBLICAN DEBATE – is yet another example of the pathetic quality of the endless presidential debates. But it isn’t just the dubious provenance of these questions – or even their inanity – that makes these events so pointless. It is their basic construction, actually their very existence, that makes a mockery of our democracy. Has anyone learned a single thing about anybody from these events? They are an embarrassment, a national joke. Amusing as people like Stephen Green are, satirists like him are in the unfortunate position of having to parody a parody.
The danger behind this is that it makes our presidential candidates (all of them) seem like idiots. [Maybe it's true. -ed. How would I know? Not from these "debates."] It also makes the media seem like clowns and reduces everything to spectacle of the sort you wouldn’t even get at a third-rate Vegas hotel way off the Strip.
Is there a solution to this? Yes, stop this nonsense and do in-depth interviews with the candidates about subject matter that counts…see what they think… what their policies are. Then, we narrow this sideshow down to some people who might conceivably be president, we can have a debate – with enough time alloted for the candidates to explain their point of view. Simple-minded? Yes. But not nearly as simple-minded as we currently have.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
25 Comments
1. Wellspring:Unbelievable that CNN would stack a GOP primary debate with a bunch of questions from democrats and Clinton campaign operatives. Especially after the gentle treatment Hillary got from CNN at the democratic debate. Especially since former democrat campaign operatives are now “neutral” political commentators.
The republican candidates need to boycott CNN the way the democrats have Fox.
Nov 29, 2007 - 10:14 am 2. Insufficiently Sensitive:CNN – the network that stooged for Saddam Hussein by suppressing news of his savage behavior because they feared losing ‘access’, has adopted a cute gimmick in these Presidential ‘debates’.
In the Democratic debate, they chose questions from Democratic activists whom they described as ‘undecided voters’.
In the Republican debate, they chose questions from Democratic activists whome they described as ‘undecided voters’. Plus they included an editorial cartoon attack against Dick Cheney with intent to poison any candidate who mentioned him favorably.
In other words, CNN continues to work as an activist adjunct of the Democratic Party, disguised as a news agency.
The Democratic candidates who refused to debate on Fox News must have known in advance of CNN’s intent to slant public opinion by their mendacious labeling of Democratic activists as ‘undecided voters’. More than likely, their refusal to go on Fox was from fear that Fox might do the same in reverse.
But, the Fox debates didn’t happen. So the Republicans who DID debate on CNN get lavish points for courage in entering a known lion’s den to face CNN’s slanted and sleazy behavior – and the Democratic non-debaters are all awarded one white flag apiece.
Nov 29, 2007 - 11:14 am 3. dclydew:You know, I really thought this was a story until I actually read the story… one guy, asking one question about an issue thats not anywhere near the top 10 things that people currently care about…
and that’s the big evil conspiracy by CNN?
Sometimes I swear the entire country has lost its mind.
Nov 29, 2007 - 12:44 pm 4. Charlie (Colorado):The Democratic candidates who refused to debate on Fox News must have known in advance of CNN’s intent to slant public opinion by their mendacious labeling of Democratic activists as ‘undecided voters’. More than likely, their refusal to go on Fox was from fear that Fox might do the same in reverse.
“Never ascribe to malice what adequately can be explained as stupidity.”
Nov 29, 2007 - 12:50 pm 5. Lem:Here is a question I would ask, if I were a plant.
If Europe was worth American blood and treasure, why isn’t the Middle East?
If history books have it right, the same things we now hear about the Middle East were being said about pre-pearl harbor Europe.
those folks will never get along bla bla bla.
Nov 29, 2007 - 1:18 pm 6. Roger:I agree with Charlie on this. In all likelihood this stupidity. But that’s my point. There’s nothing dumber than the way these absurd debates are set up.
Nov 29, 2007 - 1:20 pm 7. Mahon:Why not have real debates, at least for the General Election? High School rules, 1st & 2nd Affirmative and Negative, an actual specific resolution, some University president as moderator (say) and no involvement of media “stars.” All the candidates must have done this in high school – they know how. It would certainly be a change of pace. And if someone just gave their stump speech, they’d look pretty foolish.
Nov 29, 2007 - 1:25 pm 8. Doug S.:The very existence of this endless string of debates is itself a joke, not just how they have manifested. Why do we even need so many? I remember the good old days, when you just had a handful down toward the end of the campaign, and even then only if all of the candidates wanted to do it. A candidates’ debate actually meant something back then.
I agree with Roger that an in-depth interview with each candidate would tell us more about them than all of this farcical made-for-TV roadshow by multiple factors.
And I hope PJM is compensating Stephen Green very well for his labors. Not only has he done a swell job, but what a chore it must be ó drunkblogging has got to be the only way to get through it.
Nov 29, 2007 - 4:03 pm 9. Skookumchuk:Yes, stop this nonsense and do in-depth interviews with the candidates about subject matter that counts…see what they think… what their policies are.
Naturally. The only question is – how quickly it can happen? 2012? The one after that? How can you at Pajamas or someone elsewhere formulate a strategy to bring it about?
Nov 29, 2007 - 6:09 pm 10. BD:Two things:
#1: YouTube turns the debate into an Andy Warhol moment …. the focus is on the questioners, not the questions.
#2: Limbaugh made the point today that CNN selected questions which reflected Democrats’ biases about Republicans: “What does the Confederate battle flag mean?”; “What’s the deal with ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’?” (and then letting the retired General offer a rebuttal); “Who goes to jail after an abortion? The woman? The doctor?” He thought a debate amongst Republican candidates leading up to Republican caucuses & primaries should feature questions about the issues which most concern Republicans. I agree.
Nov 29, 2007 - 6:48 pm 11. dsinope:Romney and Rudy should simply announce a series of 4 debates over the next 4 weeks. One on one, one topic per night, modeled on the original Lincoln Douglas debates. No moderator. If any network wants to cover it, they can. Two topics picked by each candidate. Opening speech, rebuttal, two closing speeches. Questions between the two of them inbetween.
No sock puppets, no lunacy, no questions about underwear.
Nov 29, 2007 - 6:55 pm 12. cubanbob:In retrospect the plants are probably a good thing for the Republicans. If they can’t think fast on their feet and answer appropriately and intelligently to a opposition plant now, how are they going to react during the general election campaign?
Nov 29, 2007 - 7:00 pm 13. Garett:I like my colleague Alex Tabarrok’s proposal: A game show! An edited version of his Marginal Revolution blog post is below:
——————————————-
So You Think You Can Be President?
Our system for choosing presidents doesn’t work very well……Thus what we need is a way of conveying information to uninformed, unsophisticated voters in a way that is entertaining yet produces information about politicians that is correlated with real skills.
I suggest a game show, So You Think You Can Be President? SYTYCBP would have at least three segments. [Two examples:]
Coase it Out: Presidential candidates have 12 hours to get a bitterly divorcing couple to divide their assets ….
Game Theory: Candidates compete in a game of Diplomacy…..
Addendum: Yes, I am serious.
Nov 29, 2007 - 7:09 pm 14. Buddy Larsen:wonder why CNN didn’t sneak in Eason Jordan to ask if the GOP approves of shooting journalists?
Nov 29, 2007 - 7:34 pm 15. Doug S.:Test the candidates by having them play Diplomacy ó now that’s a seriously cool idea! I’d actually pay attention to that.
Nov 29, 2007 - 7:36 pm 16. Peg C.:cubanbob, your point would be good, except that, as Rush has been amply explaining this week, the Republicans face a circus of Democrat plants asking questions about policies created and/or promoted by Democrats, while Hillary no longer even has to answer good, tough policy questions nevermind challenges she should be answering about her unreleased records as First Lady, the Rose Law Firm billing records, bimbo eruptions handled by smearing and about 100 other things I can think of that immediately disqualify her for the WH. This is why I won’t watch any debates at all. I heard part of the Republican debate moderated by Russert (I was working, couldn’t watch TV) and thought the candidates acquitted themselves well. The least offensive Dem candidate is Obama and that is not a compliment. He’s an empty-suited twit. He just sounds good next to the rest.
Hillary was asked one question that blew up in her face and made her look like the equivocating flipflopper I thought only Kerry could be, and now she’s not to be asked any questions that don’t allow her to just pontificate meaninglessly. Meanwhile the Republicans are challenged by plants on policies they did not put in place and likely never would have supported. (Only Dems actually get away with being overtly racist and anti-gay.)
Conservatives have always been, are and will always be challenged on a daily basis and we have the well-constructed arguments, ideas and principles to prove it. Dems haven’t, don’t, won’t, and do not. The current crop of candidates and the Drive-Bys prove it and perpetuate it. If you never challenge someone, they never develop intellectual toughness. The Dems have no intellectual toughness.
It ain’t the Republicans that don’t think quick on their feet, bud.
Nov 30, 2007 - 3:19 am 17. Allei:Why is it that every time the Democratic Party involves itself in a democratic exercise, the cesspool overflows and stinks to high heavens? It is a case of no restraint?
Nov 30, 2007 - 3:20 am 18. Jabba the Tutt:Why don’t the candidates organize this themselves? Or two of the candidates debate. They could stream it on the internet or C-SPAN could run it, if Fox or CNN don’t want to do it. Guiliani and Romney would have an interest to debate one another. These candidates are being far too passive and not creative enough to take advantage of the new media opportunities out there.
Duncan Hunter could debate Kucinich on the war. That would be interesting and maybe we’d learn something and it would raise both of their profiles.
Why not?
Nov 30, 2007 - 5:33 am 19. Peg C.:Jabba, no one would watch. People are only watching and interested because these things are turning into Shakespearean farce. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Make it crazy enough that everyone watches, and everyone watches because it’s crazy. Hey I enjoy 20-car NASCAR pileups as well as the next person, but not in the media while they drag our presidential election year into ludicrous triviality. What’s really bad is this is becoming about everything but the candidates (other than Hillary’s bad evening which made my day).
Incidentally, almost no one watched the debates that we remember from years ago. This utter nonsense is what garners attention now. I’m not sure how you end up with a decent, serious candidate from all this.
Nov 30, 2007 - 7:26 am 20. Lem:The emotional pulse button, supposedly held by ‘real people’ (who knows who was really being measured) gave the impression the ‘audience’ were extras from a bad gladiator movie.
These so called debates are devolving.
Nov 30, 2007 - 8:01 am 21. Buddy Larsen:CNN has been beyond embarrassment since it least 2005, when boss Eason Jordan speaking at an international conference in Madrid, accused the American armed forces in Iraq of a deliberate conspiracy and action to murder journalists.
Oh yes, he had to step down afterwards–but that made it even worse–as in, by g_d if such a thing is true, you’re gonna meekly quit your job when you get a little resistance on the accusation?
So, CNN manages to be both a viciously aggressive liar and a spineless cowardly wimp at the same time–no mean trick!
Nov 30, 2007 - 8:29 am 22. Andy Freeman:I’m confused. The MSM is riddled with Dem activists and the like, so how was the CNN “debate” any different from a normal news conference?
Is the problem that some of these questioners are getting paid while journalists carry Dem water for free?
Nov 30, 2007 - 10:14 am 23. cubanbob:Peg C , your preaching to the choir. The fact is the media is biased. It isn’t right or fair but it is what it is. Nevertheless it’s a good training regimen for the Republicans and has the added virtue of helping the Democrats delude themselves. It helps anger the otherwise apathetic Republican base, possible enough to go out and vote en mass on election day no matter who the Republican candidate is and frankly when the campaigns get negative during the general as they inevitably will, the nasty questions and the set up assumption questions will be asked of both sides. It’s how they are answered that will make a big difference.
I suspect the so-called support for the left in this country is more exagerated than real. Keep in mind the last Democrat who ran as a liberal and won was Johnson. Carter barely defeated Ford and that is more due to Ford’s pardon of Nixon and the fact that he was the only apointed President along with Carter seeming to be a Southern Conservative in ‘76. Clinton never won a majority and both elections had more votes against him than for him. Again Clinton did not campaign as a lefty and for the most part did not govern to left yet if he really was so popular then question is why did Gore lose? 2000 should have been a 1984, a landslide for Gore. A year in politics is an eternity so right now it is way to early to make any calls. Nevertheless the Democratic lineup is unusally weak and the Republicans in comparision are rather strong and have real records not smoke and mirrors. And that will come out in the real debates when Hillary or whomever the Democrats choose get the the tough questions that require answers and not platittudes and spin.
Nov 30, 2007 - 11:48 pm 24. Charlie (Colorado):ddc, you’re behind — it wasn’t one question, it was nine. That’s nine questions out of roughly 30 chosen, from a pool of something around five thousand?
Anyone want to compute, as an exercise, the conditional probability that nine out of thirty-some questions, all selected randomly from a pool of 5000 distinct questions, would be?
Answer: the possibilities depend on some assumptions, but basically there are three possible classes of soution:
(1) A pool of Democrat operatives submitted something like 30 percent of ALL questions (call it 1500) and CNN didn’t notice.
(2) There is an exceedingly small probability(*) of (30/5000) * (9/5000), or about 0.0000108, that the choices were random and independent, or
(3) CNN was actually quite selective in choosing — and vetting — the questions.
(* this can be computed better, but it’s a weekend and I’m tired. If you want to make a more proper calculation, dropping the simplifying assumptions, using Bayes Rule, feel free. Personally, I don’t think most of the numbers about the universe of discourse are good enough to think of this as anything other than a back-of-envelope estimate anyway.)
Dec 1, 2007 - 4:20 pm 25. Buddy Larsen:Charlie, your ‘back-of-the-envelope’ stuff would suffice for my grandest dream of a comprehension of statistics & probability.
Dec 3, 2007 - 9:24 am