And with that ... a look back at last night’s YouTube Republican Presidential Debate ...
- I don’t think Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani should be invited to the same dinner party anytime soon. Or at least in this lifetime. The same goes for Mitt and John McCain. You could probably add the pairing of John McCain and Ron Paul in that category as well.
- When you have 30 seconds in front of millions of people to tell them how you can best lead the free world, and you launch an attack ad, what does that say about your priorities – Senator Thompson??
- I thought most of the questions were relevant and presented in a respectful fashion. Some were more clever than others. A few stand out in my mind – more for the ‘non-answers’ than the question themselves. I note that NONE of the candidates were willing to go on the record with listing three government programs that they were willing to cut. Interesting.
- I’ve been reading a few comments about the ‘Confederate Flag’ question and whether it was a worthwhile choice. I wouldn’t rank it above health care or education – but, as an exercise in deflection, it was interesting to hear Fred Thompson ‘hedge’ his answer by saying that it would be ‘acceptable’ in a public display with historic context. No, Senator, it wouldn’t. It’s a ‘historic’ symbol of hate and racism. Period.
- Between the petty sniping at opponents and the arrogant lecturing to viewers about past ‘accomplishments’, I rarely heard anyone say: “I will do this (fill in the blank)”. And they were all guilty of it, as were all of the Democrats two weeks ago. I do know that Ron Paul will remove our troops from Iraq. I do know that John McCain has promised to veto all legislation with pork barrel spending included. I suppose if I combed through the transcript, I might come up with one or two more “I will do this” type of statements. But they were few and far between. This mastery of what I call “Teflon answers” exasperates me more and more with each election cycle.
- This party is SO out of touch with the African-American community – it’s laughable – in a very sad, tragic way. Mitt Romney’s solution to black-on-black crime is to “restore family values” into those areas affected by this type of violence. (I noted that he specifically qualified “family” as "a mother and a father".) Great. Take everyone back to the “Leave it to Beaver” days – when Dad worked and Mom stayed at home to cook and clean and raise the kids – and black children attended segregated schools ... ah, yes ... the good old days ... COME ON ... this was the perfect opportunity to launch into anything substantive - perhaps into education reform and implementation of after-school, vocational and mentoring programs to help give young African-American men (and women) an option about what to do with their lives – other than resorting to violence and crime. I know ... dream on ...
- And yes – I’m tossing in my dos centavos about the ‘dust-up’ regarding General Keith Kerr. As one of the very astute AC360° Yahoo group members noted, General Kerr had just as much right as any one else to participate in last night’s debate by submitting a video. He asked a question about a national military policy. He wasn’t providing analysis, opinion or commentary – for or against any candidate. Frankly, I think that some of this “feigned outrage” has been promoted to (once again) deflect justified criticism of the overall poor performance of the candidates. I’d like to say that I doubt some of them could find their way out of a paper bag, except apparently all of them (sans McCain) can shoot their way out of a 12 foot thick cell block, if necessary!!
- While I’m at it - allow me to ask – what happened to professional courtesy among network colleagues? Within the same network? Did Campbell Brown really have to verbalize her ‘disappointment’ that certain topics weren’t covered? Probably not the best way to forge positive alliances with your new co-workers. And exactly when did Bill Bennett turn into a Faux News mouthpiece? Isn’t he under contract at CNN? What he did to Anderson Cooper on live TV was one of the most unprofessional sabotage moments I’ve ever witnessed. There was no reason to “toss out” the possibility that General Kerr may be ‘associated’ with the Clinton campaign – in the manner that he did it – other than for the purpose noted above. He should never be featured on another second of live TV at CNN.
- But I’d prefer to wrap this up on a more positive note ... this debate was handled much better that the previous Democratic Debate two weeks ago. Even though it involved Republican candidates, I could actually tolerate watching it! I think Anderson did a much better job of giving the ‘second-tier’ candidates more exposure, and I think that he kept better control of response time limits. Until the networks do what they should and start cutting off microphones, there will be always be motor mouths with no concept of an “honor system”. No matter who the moderator is.
- I was glad that Anderson did remind the candidates (subtly) that they should be respectful of those who took the time to submit questions, and answer the question. I was also glad to see that he put pressure on a few of the candidates when the questions weren’t getting direct answers, and had several follow-up questions as well.
- I hope that this type of debate format takes hold and that it may even be used when the field is narrowed down to just two candidates. Now that would be interesting to watch! And yes – because the blog is named “AC 360° Buzz” and I admit that I am ever-so-slightly biased – I’ll end by saying KUDOS (!!!!) to Anderson Cooper for a "job well done!!
4 comments:
Newsblooz: Great debate post! I think boxing gloves should be provided during the next GOP debate.
The opening video by Chris Nandor began everything on a high note (pardon the pun), but after that all hell seemed to break loose.
Just as I thought they would be, the candidates were less than honorable in choosing to ignore the “honor system” that was in place for the debate. I had the feeling that they were testing Anderson. He did the best that he could without having the option of cutting off their mikes. However, after the immigration questions civility was restored to some extent.
I was very glad that instead of going with bells and whistles they chose mostly straightforward videos and relevant questions. I am surprised and relieved that there was not much criticism about the decision to bring up the Giuliani security issue. I am glad Anderson had the guts to ask about it!
It was upsetting, but predictable to hear most of the candidates giggling like silly schoolgirls over their gun collections! Duncan Hunter was downright scary when he described how he followed his father and picked up the bullet casings during their father and son hunting trips. What kind of person would get joy claiming the right to own guns as a family tradition?
I wish that Joseph Dearing had been a little more specific when he asked the candidates if they believed every word in The Bible. He should have said, “Do you literally believe every word in The Bible.” The elimination of the word literal allowed them to sidestep the real question and pick and choose between allegorical and literal interpretation. Everyone can cherry pick what they want from The Bible given the opportunity.
The Kerr incident is unfortunate. It is a shame that Anderson seems to be getting the blame for this misstep. This is obviously the fault of the producer who should have known about General Kerr’s association with Hillary Clinton, especially since he has been on 360 a number of times. She should be held totally responsible; it was an inexcusable error on her part. The worst part of it is that Gen. Kerr had an important question and the impact of his appearance will now be negated because of her negligence. Frankly, I do not care either way; all that matters to me is that his credentials are authentic, however, that isn’t what is important to those who would find fault with the debate and Anderson. If they continue to do the You Tube debates, and I hope that they do, it may be a good idea to end the selection process earlier so that facts like this can be discovered in time.
I did not appreciate the way Bill Bennett ambushed Anderson with the information, but if he knew about this someone at CNN had to know. Although he claimed that someone just e-mailed him about it, I am sure he knew it prior to the debate but said nothing to CNN.
I am glad that Ron Paul got some jabs in!
The only criticism I have regarding the questions is that there were not any questions about health care and energy.
I am an Independent voter and in my opinion John McCain benefited the most from this debate and Fred Thompson’s appearance was a total failure.
I congratulate Anderson on a job well done; he is an elegant and professional moderator and I hope that he will host more of these debates. He had the most difficult job in journalism last night.
I am already at my limit as far as the "Kerr controversy" is concerned. Once again, something which is not even remotely relevant to the race has overshadowed most of the subjects that we, as a nation, should be discussing ... post-debate. It's amazing and nauseating, all at once.
The majority of views expressed by these men are frightening. Although I, too, am glad that Ron Paul was there to "mix it up". And I also think that Mike Huckabee gained some solid ground, since he was able to stay mostly above the "fray". And being a conservative who's willing to be grilled by Bill Maher gives him at least a partial 'gold star'.
I'm fairly sure that this post won't be quite the last of what I'll rant about regarding the aftermath of this debate - but what's a blog for, right? ;-)
Just a heads up-Anderson is reporting live on the Situation Room from the scene at Clinton's campaign headquarters in New Hampshire.
Another heads up-Anderson just announced that there will be a special edition of 360 at 8 ET.
Post a Comment