Republicans face problems in debates and the House of Representatives

Commentary by James Shott

Say what you will about the way CNBC conducted the Republican debate, the business side of NBC News did something that neither Fox News nor CNN were able to do.

All three had similarities, like gotcha questions and efforts to pit one candidate against another, elements that obstructed a discussion of the serious issues of electing a nominee for President of the United States, rather than assisting voters in making an informed decision. To the extent that real issues arose, the combative atmosphere moderators created in all three debates got in the way.

In sharp contrast to the mood in Republican debates was the Democrat debate on CNN, which also failed to reveal important information about the candidates, but approached not doing so by giving hugs and kisses to the candidates.

CNBC was both over the top and under the table. The three moderators were clearly not up to conducting a meaningful debate, not even on business and economic issues, and the muddle that resulted drew almost universal criticism. Moderators were poorly prepared, partisan, thought they were the stars of the show, were argumentative and often interrupted the candidates. While so many TV news people seem infected with the idea that being quarrelsome is cool, CNBC took that to a new level. You can challenge candidates on issues and answers, and still be civil.

However, as horrible as it was, CNBC did succeed in uniting the candidates for the first time since the campaign began, if only against CNBC’s amateurish approach, and the revolt that followed did produce a little discussion of important issues.

The 2016 debate series should be a valuable element in the process of selecting presidential candidates. Along with public and media appearances, the debates are opportunities for voters to hear candidates discuss their platforms and they are the only vehicle where the pros and cons of the various positions are aired in a way that voters have the opportunity to evaluate them side-by-side. 

So far they all have been disappointing, in terms of illuminating the candidate’s views, but CNBC wins the brown ribbon for the absolute worst. In place of questions on substantive issues, the moderators worked hard to trap and demean the Republican participants, which is very different from challenging them on issues.

Unfortunately, our campaign process identifies the best candidate, not necessarily the person best suited to be president. So much is based on appearance and performance, rather than candidates’ understanding of the country’s problems and sensible ideas for addressing them. A track record of success takes a back seat to image, charm and glibness.

And Republicans have the additional obstacle posed by the liberals in the media, who often misunderstand and not infrequently deliberately mischaracterize their objectives, and tell the world how awful they are.

Granted that the GOP is sharply divided, unlike the Democrat Party that pretty much possesses no diversity of thought. But the left portrays this Republican diversity as a weakness, which is interesting, since the left considers diversity one of the most important things in life.

It suits the purposes of the left to mischaracterize and demonize the House Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party groups and other elements of the right, and there are plenty of media sources indulging in that activity.

Some, commenting on Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s election as House Speaker, wonder how he will possibly be able to manage such an unruly group. The liberal writers characterize the conservative Republican bloc with terms such as “right-wing fringe” and “radicals.”

The liberal writers are happy to offer guidance to conservatives, such as that if their subgroup wants to set policy for its party, all it needs is to have a majority of the party’s support. And if it doesn’t have a majority, it should meekly abandon its position and support the position of the majority.

And that no doubt would please liberals and Democrats, and many Republicans. However, millions of Republican voters recognize that this approach is largely why things are worse today than when the GOP gained control of the Congress, and why the Republican Congress has been so ineffective at representing their views.

These conservative House members were elected not to offer their ideas and then surrender, they were elected to fight for their supporter’s beliefs in the traditional conservative values that built the country, and to stick by them. Isn’t that what republican government is all about?

The liberals advise that when voters have put one party in charge of the executive branch and another party in charge of the legislative branch, as is the case today, compromise is demanded to move the country forward.

However, compromise does not mean surrender, as many of these “advisors” suggest. One does not oppose a bill with multiple objectionable elements, and then “compromise” by accepting the whole package when others resist changes. The two sides identify those elements they agree on, take the rest out of the legislation, and move the compromise measure forward.

Compromise means that everyone gives up something, not just the conservative Republicans. It is sad – even dangerous – that so many Republicans do not understand this.



Cross-posted from Observations

Enough, Already, With The Debates

Enough, Already, With The Debates

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

I am not a debater… never have been.  Although I have been speaking publicly since the age of nine, I hate debates.

You may have noticed that I DO tend to favor commentaries.  In a commentary I am allowed to express my views completely, without interruption, and then sit back and wait for the fur to fly. 

I have no interest in arguing my positions or opinions.  Once stated -- that’s it!   I don’t argue.  Its not worth the time and effort necessary to sway someone else’s opinion my way.  I simply don’t care if you disagree with me.   Once my personal deliberations are complete and I make my opinions known, I am finished.  (I know the shrinks would have a field day with this!) 

All this leads me to the so-called debates between the GOP candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States.  Only a child would confuse the debates with a press conference … for that is all they are … press conferences.  They are “gotcha” sessions.  Little is learned from them though they make for grand spectacle.

We Americans have a strange way of choosing whom we send to Washington to represent us on The Hill and in the Oval Office.  It is more than “passing strange.”

One quality we Americans demand from a candidate that I see nowhere else in the free world is… “purity.”  We conservatives absolutely demand purity in our conservative belief.   We never really get it – but we continue to demand it anyway. 

Election cycle after election cycle we swear we will never “settle” – never choose the lesser of two evils – then we go right ahead and do it anyway.

The debates are really just theatre.  Most conservatives already know whom they want as the nominee long before the first debate.  But we watch and we listen and we wince when the candidates stumble and fumble and make ridiculous mistakes while under the tremendous pressure of millions of viewers – not to mention well-versed questioners (with notes from weeks of research) making every effort possible to trip them up or, in a myriad of ways, make them look foolish. 

Then there is this:  Why are there so many candidates on the stage, anyway?  It is ridiculous.  We all know there are maybe two or three candidates who have even a prayer of a chance at the nomination.  Why not have only those two or three candidates and allow for a more relaxed atmosphere and more time for the candidates to formulate answers in their minds before responding to a question.  It would certainly give the viewers and listeners a bit more insight into the way a candidate thinks.

As a former broadcaster, I have to tell you, in my view; the debates are more for the broadcasters and press than for the electorate.  Its sort of like the Oscars -- Hollywood stars salivating and honoring themselves while preening before the cameras assuring us all of their deep concern for their fellowman.  Malarkey! Hogwash! 

Never, ever, believe the Mainstream Media doesn’t do the very same thing.  They are “stars” in their own right.  If you don’t believe it – ask them! 

I’ve done pressers and news conferences.  I have been the guy with the pad and pencil furiously taking notes as the center of attention babbles on.  I’ve been the guy trying desperately to shove his microphone into the face of some politician, or other, in hopes of catching some rare pearls of wisdom dripping from those esteemed lips. I have been there.   I know a little about how news folks work.  I also know what a bit of public adulation can do to the egos of a few very insecure news personalities. 

The whole debate thing really ought to be dumped.  Rather, a roundtable discussion between the candidates and a few members of the electorate would be far more informative to the public. 

The debates, as they are staged today, are more about entertainment and the star quality of the press corp than they are about genuinely informing the American electorate.

It is a shame, really.  Much COULD be learned -- important stuff, too.  But so long as we stick with the current format of the “debates” the electorate will have to glean their information elsewhere.

And then – there is this:  The GOP debates are the best weapon Obama and the Democratic Party have … at the moment.  There are no Democratic Party debates because Obama has no democratic challenger.  So all the screw-ups, all the mistakes, all the brain freezes, all the “space-outs” are happening to the republican candidates.  It makes them look weak, confused, even a little, well, dumb.  The Mainstream Media, which is in the tank for Obama and the Democratic Party, will play all the screw-ups and glitches of the Republicans to the hilt in order to make their extraordinarily weak President look better. Obama is SOOO bad, it doesn’t take much to make him look better.

In light of all this -- even more debates are in the offing. Wouldn’t it make more sense to STOP DEBATING?  But, hey, this is politics.  Who said it is supposed to make sense? 

J. D. Longstreet