|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Nice Debates, Guys, but You’re in TroublePosted on Oct 20, 2011
I was pleasantly surprised last Wednesday when I asked a roomful of students at the University of Southern California how many had watched the Republican candidates’ debate the night before and dozens of hands went up, more than half the students, maybe two-thirds.
Admittedly, it was a group of political junkies, but still, it was good to see people cared. Their reward is that there will not be another debate until Nov. 3. But we all learned a lot these last few weeks about a party in (to be polite) transition—and about television.
Television first. We have begun to think of it as an "old" medium, but in fact, as far as politics is concerned, it is still king. It is a medium that can create stars instantly, and celebrity is the coin of the realm—Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain. It can also still discard them after 15 minutes: Michele Bachmann.
The "new" media, social media and all that, have proved to be important in campaigns for organization—putting people of like minds together and raising money. And the new media, specifically YouTube, and the old media share one characteristic. They take one moment of a debate or a campaign and take it viral. Television does that by repeating the same clip, usually embarrassing, over and over again on news programs and news channels. YouTube is there for the same process of recasting politics and people as laugh lines.
But television still has the big stick. Most non-fanatic voters—and I think we are still the majority—use their franchise to choose the person they sense has the best "character" and the most relevant experience. How we decide that question is by watching the candidates on television and by word-of-mouth, which often comes down to talking to friends and acquaintances about what we see or saw on television. Mass media. The Internet certainly reaches as many people, but its messages are far more diverse.
Advertisement
So what did we learn these last few weeks? To begin with, Republicans are people too. These candidates mixed it up a bit, showed some passion and some humor. Nice. A viewer did not learn much about their positions except that they are inclined to publicly side with the extremists in their own party. The most important moment in the debate came when all the candidates, like kindergartners, raised their hands when they were asked whether they would reject a deficit-reduction plan that would cut $10 in spending for every $1 in new revenues.
And we learned that they all hate Mitt Romney. It is not that he is the front-runner, or the even-runner with Herman Cain, who is about as qualified as I am to be president. His “9-9-9 plan” makes a laugher of the Laffer Curve. And it looks as if Perry plans to go the flat-tax route as well, which means flattening the middle class. At any rate, their attitude toward Romney is that they hate the guy.
Romney is too handsome, too rich, too Mormon, too moderate (sometimes), too condescending and way too flexible. One suspects he is back in Massachusetts right now having his lawn covered with asphalt after checking whether any of the paving company employees have ever been within a hundred miles of our side of the border with Mexico.
So, whatever polls say, the Republicans are in trouble. The debates were fun, but they didn’t move the needle or the ball, whichever cliché you prefer.
© 2011 UNIVERSAL UCLICK  TAGS:
|
More Exposés, Less Action
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By oddsox, October 24, 2011 at 8:14 am Link to this comment
@Aarky—
Your post-name implies you know the Clintons well.
We agree, Hillary bears watching.
With the election still over 1 year away, so many scenarios, however improbable, have time to play out.
This has been a well-rounded, wide-ranging discussion thread.
Report thisBy ardee, October 23, 2011 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment
oddsox, October 22 at 11:26 am
As I have noted many times in the past I am of the opinion that Green Party growth will be a slow but steady accumulation of local and state office holders, eventually emerging on the national stage as it becomes clearer to more and more of us that our current Duopoly rules for the wealthy and not for we the people.
It is rather unimportant who they put up for national office, doing so only because the the party needs exposure on a national level. One may find local and state candidates on the GPUSA website as we get closer to those elections.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, October 22, 2011 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment
Yeah, nobody. Abolish the presidency.
Report thisBy oddsox, October 22, 2011 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
@tolstoy—
thanks for your lineup.
I’d love to see what other frequent TruthDig posters come up with—Anybody else wanna chip in here?
Ardee for the Green party?
Anarcissie (nobody?)
drbhelthi?
This could be a lot of fun…
Report thisBy tolstoy, October 22, 2011 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
Maybe sometime in the spring a third force could emerge other than Tea Party or Obama Regular? We have the Occupy Obama movement starting in Iowa, which could lead to emergence of a third force just as the occupy movement has gradually emerged following last spring’s Wisconsin movement. Suppose we were asked for dream candidates and a dream cabinet? Who might that be? Here’s a stab at it—BSanders for president, Eliz Warren vice prez, Joseph Stieglitz secretary of the treasury, Paul Krugman Attorney General, and replace Petraeus and Panetta with Kucinich and Feingold. These figures give the idea for the right type, maybe? Vs. opportunism, ignorance, and self-interest . . .
Report thisBy kazy, October 22, 2011 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
That’s too bad I was hoping to see Obama defeated by at least a moderate Republican like Romney just to show the dems that we’re over them. By not voting for dem candidates and allowing the DO NOTHING party of the GOP to win by lack of votes for the dems, might put a fire to our broken system. Let’s face it, there’s no difference between the dems and the repugs except the dems do more hand wringing before voting the same way the repugs do. The dems are just a bunch of players. They’re just pretending to be the “good cop” when in fact both parties are bad cops and an ineffective president like Obama who has all the airs of thinking that he’s doing something when he’s done absolutely NOTHING to change the situation we’re in, needs to go. One term, just like Bush I and Carter
Report thisBy Aarky, October 22, 2011 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Every Demo and Independant who sat out the elections in 2010 because of their anger at being stabbed in the back by Obama should be forced to watch these debates. The Republican hopefuls are playing to an ultra right base that might not be as large as they hope for. We still have people in the deep south who vote Republican based on God, Guns, Gays, and a good dose of racism and they die early because they have no health insurance and then rail against Obamacare. I had my grandson ask his highschool classmates who they would vote for in 2008 and all those were the reasons transmitted from their parents. My opinion: Obama does not deserve to be re-elected but we should run very scared of Hillary.She outgrovelled Obama in their kow towing to the Israelis and she is more than willing to repeat every lie the Likkudniks hand to her. Her saber waving toward Iran outdid McCain. My suggestion: Dean or Kucinich.
Report thisBy oddsox, October 21, 2011 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment
Anarcissie—understand your critique of Hillary from the “proggie” and other perspectives.
It wasn’t too long ago she was the most polarizing figure in American politics (before the unveiling of Sarah Palin).
My post on Hillary isn’t an endorsement.
Report thisIt’s a warning.
By oddsox, October 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment
@Marcy
Understood re: the 60 senators.
But, alas, didn’t the Dems HAVE that 60-seat super majority just a mid-term election ago?
The point is Obama is weakening as evidenced by his falling approval ratings and now this poll that says he doesn’t deserve re-election.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/10/poll-obama-reelection/
Will he win anyway, a la Harry Reid vs. Sharon Angle?He could, of course.
Too soon to say for sure, which was my first point posted on this thread.
Marcy, I appreciate that you’re working for Obama and like him.
I like him, too.
As a person & good family man and an ex-smoker. (I wish more were made of that last item—his good example could help a lot of people.)
But as a President, his star is falling.
Report thisYou write Obama “has signed on at least as many NEW supporters as have “faded away” from the 2008 roster.”
Whether Obama wins or loses in 2012, I’ll betya a dollar my prediction on lost VOTER support comes true on election day.
We’ll just have to wait and see on that one.
By Anarcissie, October 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment
oddsox—There’s certainly the connection with her husband and his friends and allies. There is also the same thing that haunted her when she was running for the nomination in 2008, her record as an unapologetic warmonger. This may go over well with some people, but the proggie base didn’t like it then and won’t like it now. Curiously she is simultaneously held to be both too left-wing and too right-wing, sometimes by the same people.
Report thisBy Basoflakes, October 21, 2011 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment
I can’t believe Truthdig lionizes MSM.
-This is the media that blacked out Ralph Nader and now Ron Paul;
-This is the media that didn’t ask Nader to participate in the debates in 2004 and 2008;
-This is the media that stood by while Bush dragged us into an illegal war with illegal torturing and renditioning;
-This is the media that failed to follow up on pledges from Obama to look into crimes of the past administration.
TV is king - and we are all serfs.
Report thisBy Marcy, October 21, 2011 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
A “Democratic” Senate in which 60 votes are required to move something to the
Report thisfloor for debate…so simple math tells you, oddsox, that the Dems don’t CONTROL
the Senate—they don’t have 60 seats! You clearly don’t understand the “60 votes
out of 100 is a majority” sham process under which they’re being forced to
operate.
By Marcy, October 21, 2011 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t know where you’re getting your “facts,” oddsox, but I can tell you from personal experience that Organizing for America, the organization founded in 2009 out of the Obama for America grassroots operation, has signed on at least as many NEW supporters as have “faded away” from the 2008 roster. If a Repub
Report thishas a chance, it won’t be because support for Obama is significantly less than it was in ‘08—you may not see the same visible level of enthusiasm, but once thinking Dems, independents and Republicans consider the two actual alternatives and take into account what kind of policies the GOP candidate would pursue if elected…you’ll see people coalescing around the candidate who best represents their views and values—and based on current polling on issues, that person is
President Barack Obama.
By Hasapiko, October 21, 2011 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment
To cpb, who wrote:
“‘Nice Debates, Guys, but You’re in Trouble’ ???
We’re the ones in trouble. Cain and Bachmann and their ilk will do just fine.”
Exactly. We are the ones who are in trouble. We will have to choose between one of these clowns and a puppy dog president who thinks being nice gets him anywhere.
Report thisBy oddsox, October 21, 2011 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment
@anarcissie—HA!
Hillary’s baggage?
You’d be talking about Bill, wouldn’t you?
I don’t agree.
He could be a huge asset, especially w/fundraising.
And a reminder of better economic times past.
Of course, Bill’s challenge will be staying in the background, that’s gonna be tough for him.
Back to Hillary, I believe she still wants to be President. Though slightly younger than Romney, waiting until 2016 may not work for her; time isn’t on her side.
All the while, she can’t be seen as trying to unseat or torpedo Obama.
Rather, she’s gotta be riding the white horse, coming in to save the country and the party.
Maybe even with Obama’s blessing.
That all could happen if things keep spiraling downward.
Consider:
—The strongest part of Obama’s presidency has been foreign policy. Even the Repubs give him credit for offing Bin Laden and now Mubarak and Khadafi are gone, too.
Every time Obama gets credit Hillary’s stock rises as well.
—The weakest part of Obama’s term is the economy.
Can’t blame Hillary for anything here at home.
As Secty of State, Hillary’s been perfectly positioned these past 3 years.
—Inflation is still tame, but it’s double this year what it was in 2010. Food & energy up especially and that’s not even being counted.
If inflation leaps again in 2012 it’ll gin up the Jimmy Carter comparisons.
The “Misery Index” (highest in 28 years) was dusted off by the Mainstream Media in a story just this week.
—Somebody wisely asked “How can we have a double-dip recession when we’re still in the first one?”
While technically incorrect (a recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), many still fear the double-dip.
Unlikely, but a distinct possibility.
—Of course, unemployment trumps all and if that’s back up to 10% or higher….
I’m not rooting for any of this.
The election is still over a year off…
I voted for Obama and would like to again.
... wish I had a reason.
But Hillary bears watching.
Report thisAlways.
By cpb, October 21, 2011 at 10:16 am Link to this comment
Nice Debates, Guys, but You’re in Trouble
???
We’re the ones in trouble. Cain and Bachmann and their
Report thisilk will do just fine.
By cpb, October 21, 2011 at 10:14 am Link to this comment
And now for the big question - what does it mean that
the worlds only superpower elects it’s governing members
through a process that includes debates such as this?
With personalities such as this? Propped up as they are
by the kind of capital (with lots and lots and lots of
zeros) that can now hide behind Citizen-United, the kind
of capital that has interests which conflict with that
of the general population? (Despite the rhetoric of that
capital to the contrary, endlessly disseminated through
media owned by same interests.)
Are there larger lessons to be learned from the
statement:
“How we decide that question is by watching the
candidates on television and by word-of-mouth, which
often comes down to talking to friends and acquaintances
about what we see or saw on television.”
... a statement that few would argue?
It is sad, pathetic and telling.
But I wouldn’t worry about it. It’s all the voters
Report thisfault dontchya know. Puke.
By purplewolf, October 21, 2011 at 9:45 am Link to this comment
Ardee:I can understand the “fascination thing”. I have watched bits and pieces of the debates between other shows when the ads come on and cannot believe the stupidity,rudeness,ignorance, arrogance and hatred,just to name a few of the negative traits seem coming from the mouths of these so called “religious” one-up-manship these candidates display.I have yet to see anything positive from them and what they would do for America and the people in a positive and progressive way.
Report thisBy balkas, October 21, 2011 at 9:24 am Link to this comment
i do not listen to anyone unless that s’mone listens to me. tnx
Report thisBy Anarcissie, October 21, 2011 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
Mrs. Clinton has the disadvantage of carrying a lot of baggage.
Report thisBy oddsox, October 21, 2011 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
@purplewolf: HA—you’re right about the “debates” lacking the classic form.
(watch Kennedy-Nixon 1960 sometime for contrast)
The Repubs do seem weak right now.
As does Obama.
Report thisHe can’t even get the streamlined version of his jobs bill (note lower case) past the Senate.
Not the Republican House, but his Democratic Senate.
But nature abhors a vacuum.
That’s why I say keep watching Hillary.
In the news again today, yet above the fray. Significant that she took a swipe at Cain yesterday. From Kabul w/ prez Karzai? What’s that about?
By Anarcissie, October 21, 2011 at 6:38 am Link to this comment
People do watch TV in old-age homes, asylums, hospitals, especially mental hospitals, and jails, where there is nothing else to do.
Report thisBy Mark S, October 21, 2011 at 5:18 am Link to this comment
You mean people still watch TV? How stupid is that?
Report thisBy ardee, October 21, 2011 at 5:13 am Link to this comment
ardee, were all the other channels off the air? or did someone tie you down to the chair and put toothpicks in your eyelids?
I think it is the same sort of morbid fascination that one gets when watching a snake stalk and strike its prey. I simply couldn’t turn away from this spectacle of the ‘politics of stupid’.
Report thisBy diamond, October 21, 2011 at 1:58 am Link to this comment
Of course Republicans are people and so are corporations and that’s exactly how this incoherent rabble of one percenters likes it. I’ve seen better line ups at a line dancing class.
Report thisBy skimohawk, October 21, 2011 at 12:23 am Link to this comment
as purplewolf noted, these are no longer “debates” by any definition, nor even “discussions”.
ardee, were all the other channels off the air? or did someone tie you down to the chair and put toothpicks in your eyelids?
Report thisBy SteveL, October 20, 2011 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment
Newt Gingrich made Cobb County Georgia the center of government pork when he
Report thiswas Speaker of the House. Now all he parrots is his complaint about “Big
Government”.
By chris scheer, October 20, 2011 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
So Reeves says if we don’t pick our candidates by “character and relevent experience”,
we are “fanatical”?
Wow.This is the ultimate in anti-intellectual, anti-ideology “bipartisan” analysis, designed
to squelch real debate.
This whole column was a waste of time.
Report thisBy ardee, October 20, 2011 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment
I actually watched most of the thing, for reasons I , myself, cannot iterate. These folks are in need of medication, not votes. They race to the right as if every damn poll doesn’t prove, again and again, that the majority in this nation continues to support progressive goals.
Those who support Obama should be relieved by this slate of would be opponents to an Obama re-election. Those of us who support the Green Party hope that more and more voters, turned off by the two republicans running for office (the one for re-election) may choose to vote Green.
Report thisBy Matthew, October 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Part of the reason the debates are so early is because many states are in the “we
Report thishave the earliest primary possible” race. Primaries start 11 months before the
actual election. That’s pretty silly.
By Payson, October 20, 2011 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Are there any actual Americans watching these “debates,” not counting paid
Report thispoliti-drones who are given endless venues for their analysis? Everyone I know
is just trying to do the best they can and the last thing they want to do is waste
their time with these absurd pageants of blame, posturing and empty promises.
We are fed total nonsense by the “media” posing as actual political information.
Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I think most people have figured out that the
American political system is a game. Each side stirs up the same social issues
and scare tactics and in the end we get more of the same. Didn’t like Bush, the
Republican war monger and Wall Street crony? Well, now we have Obama, the
Democrat version of the war monger and Wall Street Crony. Cable news has
become an enemy of democracy. The right wingers have their channels and so
do the left. Neither group gets many facts. If you don’t like Fox News because
you hate being lied to, MSNBC will fill you in on what you missed because much
of their “reporting” is about what one of the Fox News bullies spewed that day.
CNN claims the “middle,” though they don’t seem to have any problem with
hiring Piers Morgan who rose in his prior job by supporting illegal activities to
get stories.
What have these “debates” done for America?
It is now socially acceptable to boo and jeer active duty servicemen because
they are gay, cheer the death of the uninsured, blame the poor and
unemployed for just about everything, and accuse Obama(employer of Geithner
and Summers and king of Wall Street aid) of being an anti-capitalist out to
destroy business. Analysts, right and left, scoop up the most controversial
crap and present it to the public, many of whom believe anything said on the
“news.” Who cares if the right-left paradigm is used by the media to erode
unity and awareness as long as ratings are good, right?
By rumblingspire, October 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“In our secure online convention next June, American voters will choose our first directly-nominated presidential ticket. Your voice, your choice.”
http://www.americanselect.org/
something tells me 2012 will be an election year like no other.
Report thisBy purplewolf, October 20, 2011 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment
Nice Debates ??? Those are not debates,they are not even half-assed debates.Debates used to be: two people each taking opposite sides of a topic and discussing about why their view is valid and a questioner or mediator. This mess we have today is not a discussion,it is a 1 question per person then on to the next person with something totally different.It is noting more than a farce.
Also,this process of the last presidential season for 2008 lasted about 20+ months and it was stated at the time it was too long.Most countries do this in 6weeksto three months tops.The 2012 presidential campaigning started before the 2008 was over.Enough already, these repukelican idiots are making America a laughing stock for the rest of the world.
Report thisBy oddsox, October 20, 2011 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment
..ok, even this early, 2 things fairly certain we can figure on:
1) There will be more people who voted for Obama in 2008 who won’t in 2012 ... than there will be voters who do in 2012 but didn’t in 2008.
Thus any Repub will at least have a chance.
2) It’s too soon to stop watching Hillary.
Report thisBy oddsox, October 20, 2011 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment
Still way too early, the election isn’t THIS November.
Report this