The candidates and the media
candidates are complaining
about the biased questions and generally unfair treatment given them by the liberal media outlets that host the presidential debates. But the more relevant question is, why do these candidates submit themselves like sheep to the liberal media’s unmerciful ministrations? Why haven’t they insisted on their own ground rules, or organized their own debates? Their standard Republican dhimmitude before the liberal media suggests how they will govern if they are elected.
There’s an interesting discussion about this at Lucianne.com. Check out this comment:
Reply 17—Posted by: M2, 11/13/2011 8:26:23 AM
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 14, 2011 09:35 AM | Send
What I cannot fathom is why ANY of the candidates agree to these “debates”, which are not debates at all.
Cain and Gingrich had the right idea: Go back to the Lincoln-Douglas-style debates which are debates. If that is not feasible, get rid of these “moderators” who pontificate, play favorites and offer premises not in evidence.
I don’t like these alleged TV debates the way they are structured. They are phony by necessity; the candidate is forced to answer lengthy questions containing false premises.
If necessary, all the candidates should get together and craft their own schedule. Two-by-two they should get themselves on Fox or talk radio where they will actually get a chance to debate each other, not to answer questions posed by haughty, biased moderators.
For example the following questions are inarguably legitimate b/c they pose no inherent bias:
“What is the first thing you will you do about our debt/spening?”
“What is your position on climate change?”
“Will you work on repealing ObamaCare? If so, how?”
“What is your position on the 2nd amendment?”
“What is your position on the present condition of our education system and how would you improve it?”
“Do you plan to get rid of any agencies? If so, which ones and why?”
Those are unbiased questions, direct and to the point. Then let each candidate have five minutes to answer each question. Then a two minute rebuttal by the opponent, then a one minute closing by each, determined order by the flip of a coin.
The following week, do it again with two different candidates. The questions listed above are pressing issues, phrased without bias. That is what we need. We don’t need speechifying or false premises by “moderators”. We don’t get the full feel of each candidate using present methods.