The Republican Debates

    Back in 1964 Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan famously proclaimed about television that "the medium is the message", meaning that we need to look at the characteristics and impact of the medium itself, not just the content that it carries.  Lets apply that principle to the Republican debates.

    For the past five months the political narrative in the country has been increasingly dominated by the group of nine or ten contenders for the Republican presidential nomination while the president has gone around the country giving his stump speech about a "jobs" bill that nobody thinks has a chance of passing the Democratic Senate or the Republican House. To date there have been six debates with eleven more planned through next March. For most, to be invited a candidate needs to have achieved 1% or more in five national polls - a hurdle which makes for a crowded stage, but no legitimate complaints of exclusion.   

    The "Big Tent" is obvious. Geography of the candidates ranges from Northeast (Romney, Santorum); to Southeast  (Gingrich, Cain); to Southwest (Perry, Paul, Johnson) to Midwest (Bachmann, Pawlenty); to the Mountain States (Hunstman). Gender includes Bachmann; race includes Cain; religion includes Huntsman and Romney. Ideology ranges from libertarian (Paul); to liberal (Johnson); to moderate (Romney); to conservative (the rest.)

    Media coverage is guaranteed with individual debate sponsorship by Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, PBS, Politico, the Washington Examiner, the Washington Post, the Des Moines Register, the Tea Party Express, Google, and You Tube.  Geographic interest is enhanced by holding debates in California, New Hampshire, Florida, and all points between. With viewership ranging between 3 and 6 million the Republican National Committee is getting a lot of free advertising.

    The debates should put to bed any lingering claim that the Republicans have no ideas - see Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, his "Chilean model" for Social Security reform, Mitt Romney's 59 point plan to get the economy going, or Newt Gingrich's new "Contract With America".  There have been a few ugly audience points - cheering Perry's defense of the death penalty; booing a gay soldier's question about the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", and a few cheers for Ron Paul's libertarian view that a patient who has refused to buy health insurance should be allowed to die. (The first two deserve a policy discussion; the third involved just a couple zealots.)

    This process is working well for Romney who has been through something like it before. He hasn't been seriously challenged because the format prefers sound bites over follow-ups; opponents fear blow-back for violating Reagan's admonition against attacking fellow Republicans; the struggle has been among the others to be the anti-Romney; and some harbor a hope of a vice presidential nod or a cabinet position. The large swath of the party which resents Romneycare, his establishment connections, or even his Mormon faith has tested a series of more conservative candidates, none of whom have yet gained lasting traction. Giving Ron Paul a place on the stage has averted any serious talk of a third party insurrection.  Leaders like Jim DeMint who were instrumental in toppling inadequately conservative incumbent Republicans in 2010 have supported the open process and have indicated that they could accept a Romney nomination - the objective is to defeat Obama.

    The larger point is that more people, particularly among the political class, know Rick Perry's position on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants or are asking about Herman Cain's tax proposals than care where President Obama is giving his next "tax the rich" speech. On the date of the first debate Obama's Real Clear Politics average poll rating was 51% approve; 43 % disapprove.  Today it is the reverse. Given the ongoing direct public exposure, it is increasingly difficult for the Democrats and liberal media to demonize a stage-full of legitimate candidates whose center-right positions match the mood of the country.    

                                                            -----

 

    Here's an early cut of an Obama '12 ad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIA5aszzA18. Maybe "Four More Years" could use a bit of fine tuning.  

bill bowen - 10/7/11

Comments

[DickG]

18th DEBATE-'BACK TO THE GAME SHOW'and a partisan moderator. Results-disaster.
Although this shouldn't have happened,regardless; it did. Take away the 'KITCHEN-TABLE', insert a Stand up FORMAT and a contentious atmosphere; most came apart. The two real contenders left standing;"who kept their heads while all about them were losing theirs"-Cain and Gingrich. GAME OVER

[DickG]

Compare tonight's (Oct 18th)Debate success with the 'Kitchen Table Style' success of the 11th. It will be interesting to see if they maintain a successful formula; or will they sabotage it and return to (nicknamed by Gingrich)'The Game Show' version ?

[DickG]

Hope Obama does do something (NATO) to put them off of their game in Iran.
I 'posted'today in response to last nights 'highly successful Republican Debate'. The 'MEDIUM and SETTING',thanks to Charlie Rose.
The 'set piece',KITCHEN TABLE format and Bi-Partisan questioning had at least as much to do with their demeanor and calm as did the increasing experience of the Candidates. Compliments on it were graciously delivered by Newt Gingrich, following.
Romney dominated;Bachman gave an excellent summary of the '08 disaster;Perry reafirmed Tort reform;Santorum the Family. Newt keeps it all on TRACK. Cain affirming action to come. Paul on the FED. Complete as never before.

[Bill McCormick]

ON IRAN---

In Late 2009 after extending the hand of friendship Obama did a 120 degree turn and decided to draw a line in the sand for Iran to come to the table and negotiate their nuclear arms development project away. The deadline came and went. The penalty was a two year wait for Russia and China to agree to the famous economic sanctions and impose them to bring Iran to their knees. With no agreement the US and our EU allies imposed some symbolic sanctions. In the meantime we hope the Isrealis slowed the project down by planting a worm in Iranian computers. Iran in the meantime cracked down on demonstrators and exported bombs to Iraq and Afghanistan used to kill Americans. They continued the development and testing of ballistic missile delivery systems. A couple weeks ago they announced their warships would patrol the oceans. And last week they announced they would station warships off the coast of the US. In the midst of the Arab Spring the US openly called Assad a reformist. He then turned around and killed 2000 or more demonstrators. When the US told him we didn't consider that to be proper reform Iran supported him. The US has yet to decide how to stop Assad from his brutal crackdown. Now --to their credit-- the US intelligence forces intercept and stop a bomb attack on America designed to kill the Saudi Ambassador in a DC restaurant in what would have been an act of war by Iran. After the announcement by Iran that they would station war ships off the coast of the US they were told no problem Iran can go where it wants. Now the first words out of the administration's mouth is we will not respond militarily to this event. Why would we say that? Are we afraid Iran will prempt us? Or, are our Isreali friends already in the process of the response? Or, is this just another step in the continuous policy of ignoring the Iranian problem?

What many people like about Christie, Cain and liked about Reagan was they told it like it is. They see a problem, they address it and take action. Iran's leaders are similar. They see Isreal and the US and they do not mince words: they will attack us and now they have. For some reason it is ok if you attack in a war zone of Iraq or Afghanistan. Or if you ship money and missiles to Lebanon to be fired into Isreal. Or, now even if you attack the US and fail. What would be our response had the attack come from a warship 200 miles off the East coast aimed at the rising Twin Towers if we intercepted the missile and shot it down? Sanctions? Would we invite them to reload? We think that we can wait for the development of a nuclear weapon and then deter this regime? Not a good bet. What would have deterred those 19 guys who flew to their death on 9-11? Nothing. It is time to take this regime at their word, decalre war on them along with Al Queda (officially) and take whatever measures we need to take down the regime in power. In the meantime the administration has openly resisted closing the border with Mexico-- and Iran pointed right to the opportunity it presents to our enemy be it drug lords, job seekers or terrorists.

So the Arab Spring which looks to Americans like a rising tide of Democracy looks to Assad and the Iranian regime like a threat that will likely take their jobs away one by one in the months ahead. As the dictatorships fall one by one the next regime becomes more defiant and more desperate. Saddam had plenty of chances to end it peacefully and chose hanging. Quadahfi had plenty of chances to head for exile and is still holding out in his home town. Assad could have taken on the role of "refomer" but intead openly shot his people from roof tops in open defiance of the US and NATO even as we were taking down Quadahfi. And, now Iran steps up the acts of open terror on the US and Saudi's. Since 1950 the US forces have been staring in the face of the dictator of North Korea. He has had ample opportunities to negotiate a peace. He has not. His people die in death camps and of starvation. We spend billions of dollars to watch him. It was a niave Obama who won the Presidency. His hair has greyed and by now I'm sure his view of reality and our enemies has changed. How many wars will this President be fighting by the time he leaves office?

[DickG]

Pastor Jeffress; making about as much sense as Rev. Wright did. Perry's position in the POLLS certainly belies such errors.
Someone said;"Texas is so flat you can see for 50 miles;if you stand on a can of tuna,you can see for 100". Time for Perry to get up on at least the can of tuna.
He is not done yet though. The vote on the new Texas license plate is awaiting a Perry appointment. Not sure if it happened yet.

[Harrycat]

Whoa !!! The senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas (Jeffress) says that Romney is "not a Christian" and that Mormonism is a cult. This not a minor personage; the church has 10,000 members and is widely followed in evangelical circles. He introduced Perry at the Values Voter Summit. Perry apparently approved the choice knowing Jeffress's views and had little to say afterwards when the shit hit the fan.

How are we to react to this? Is the Rep party only for Protestants, particularly those of the South?

[DickG]

Unifying Observation Today- Usually I pay little attention to the 'VIEW'on TV. As per usual,one of their members was complaining about Herman Cain and millionaires in general (which all members of the show certainly are). Immediately , the Conservative member pulled her list of high ranking members of both the Clinton and Obama Administrations who had received outrageous Fees due to their key Governmental positions. ABSOLUTE SILENCE, then a more congenial
discussion proceded.
Once we all admit to our respective 'WARTS' and remove them ;maybe truth and 'common sense' can prevail.

[Harrycat]

I am reminded of the old (and truly great) song by Peggy Lee: Is that all there is? What I see is the "flavor of the day" candidates (Bachmann, Palin, Trump, Perry, Cain, Pawlenty, Huntsman, etc) arise, present themselves, and then disappear as we continue the long slog to nominating Romney who nobody really wants.

[DickG]

Re;The 'Greenspan Comment'(B.McCormick)
The foreign bank stocks ownership - Was that the method used during TARP to bail-outs from CDSwaps and MBSecurities ?

[DickG]

I had not realized the roster of hosts and locals for the DEBATES were so comprehensive. Certainly a contrast to the 'slight of hand 'styled process we've seen from the Administration.
As Gingrich spoke this evening about it;the term "unintended consequence" came to mind. He refered to the 'stage setting'& frequency as "the game show version of the debates". Also, that they were designed for the '3 minute news sound bite';with only 'hints' of substantive solutions. Gingrich proposed a 3 hour Lincoln/Douglas style for the Nominees;
without use of moterators. {His command of government limits, the Constitution and historic precedents, is stunning.}