Here are some of the highlights of last night’s GOP debate. I didn’t think anything was necessarily that insightful, but it was quite entertaining at times. I can’t decide what part of it I liked the best: seeing the candidates sitting uncomfortably at kindergarten-sized desks, listening to Ron Paul call Rick Santorum a “fake” to his face, or witnessing the awkward catfights between Romney and Santorum…
What were your thoughts about the debate??
Good opinion article from CNN:
By Todd Graham, Special to CNN
(CNN) — Lately it’s hard to tell the difference between a presidential debate and “The Jerry Springer Show.” Yeah, I know. Some of you have been saying this for months. But my comment isn’t a criticism of the candidates, but the live audience. I was hoping this audience “whoop” factor would go away over the long debate season, but it has only grown worse.
Are they serving alcohol at the debates? It seems like it. In last night’s Republican presidential debate, held in the Myrtle Beach Convention Center in South Carolina, the chaotic audience once again played an awkward role in the questions and answers.
Why does this matter? On these presidential debates, the vocal live audiences have shown themselves to be more disruptive than productive. And I’ve seen debate judges (people who should know better) in intercollegiate tournaments have their decisions influenced by a noisy audience — even judges trained to be impartial and objective.
In this case, the judges are you, the audience. I know everyone believes they can’t be swayed like this, but it still happens (even to me, which is one of the reasons I watch the presidential debates alone. I don’t want anyone influencing my analysis). There is even a name for it in the literature. Emotional contagion.
And it was apparent Monday night — fanboys (and fangirls) who were every bit as rabid as a football crowd. The only people missing were face-paint girl and shirtless guy. (Of course, it’s hard to tell on television how much of the crowd participated in the cheering and booing.)
It was especially annoying because the live audience was booing their disapproval at inappropriate times. Two examples. Juan Williams, one of the moderators, was asking Mitt Romney about his immigration policies when he was interrupted in mid-question. Williams had begun the question by stating that Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico. “Boo!” came the shouts from the audience. What? What in the world were they booing? I still have no idea. It could have been Juan Williams, the question, Romney’s father, or Romney’s position on immigration. It made no sense.
Then the live audience ganged up on Ron Paul. Remember, Paul has some of the more unconventional foreign policy positions for a conservative Republican audience. And Paul was not at his best last night (I’ve heard him defend his argument much more effectively) when explaining his position on the military operation that killed Osama bin Laden.
But the audience mistimed its reaction and used most of its vitriol immediately after Paul said the American people wouldn’t like it if the United States were treated the same way it treated other countries. Paul reiterated his stance that we should use the golden rule — do unto others as you would have them do unto you — when the boos rang out. I couldn’t believe it. I was indeed hearing this correctly. The crazed audience at the presidential debate actually booed the golden-freaking-rule. What’s next? Helping old women cross the street? “Boo! … Villain!” Puppies? “Hiss … Shame!”
And the audience was equally annoying when applauding. Remember: Cheering should prove nothing to you in a debate except that some candidates are better than others at stacking the live audience with supporters. I’m also beginning to wonder if there is an “applause” sign that lights up so some of the slower audience operatives will remember when to react.
For their part, the candidates handled the live audience pretty well. After all, politicians are used to verbal feedback in public speeches and town hall meetings.
My advice today is for the general viewing public at home. Simply keep in mind that the opinions of the live audience are not necessarily reflective of anything, including logic. And try to resist being influenced by overzealous fools watching the debate from the cheap seats. If this continues, we’re in danger of letting the loud few influence the silent many watching at home. I certainly hope we can reverse this trend. Because I’d hate to see the next step: Measuring presidential debates by audience noise-meters with a needle that moves up and down. After all, higher decibel levels must indicate better policies.
That’s sarcasm, just FYI.
Jon Huntsman decided to skip the Iowa campaigning and head staright for New Hampshire, so he knew that his performance in the Iowa Caucus wouldn’t be great.
However, Ron Paul decided to use Twitter to taunt Huntsman, posting this last night:
How very Presidential of you, Mr. Paul.
Political website Politico writes:
Though Paul has not engaged Jon Huntsman directly so far, the former Utah governor has been hitting Paul in New Hampshire in recent days — and when the GOP race shifts to New Hampshire later this week, the two candidates will be competing for some of the same voters in the Granite State.
The tweet was deleted shortly after it posted. I’ve emailed Paul spokesman Jesse Benton for comment.
UPDATE: Paul spokesman Gary Howard tells POLITICO’s Juana Summers in Iowa that the tweet was mistakenly deleted and has been reposted:
“I think someone mistakenly deleted it. I think our IT guy didn’t know it was being tweeted when he saw it, thought someone hacked it. But it wasn’t a hacked tweet. It was our tweet. We said what we wanted to say “
UPDATE: Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller emails to respond:
We find it odd that Congressman Paul would attack Gov. Huntsman in such a childish fashion. Just the latest in a long line of odd statements from him.
This morning on CNN’s new AM morning show “Starting Point,” Soledad O’Brien asked Ron Paul about the Tweet, and he acted as though he was confused and blew off the question as if it were absolutely ridiculous. O’Brien asked if that was the manner in which a Presidential candidate should be acting, and Paul blew her off and asked her why the topic was even relevant.
Well, Mr. Paul, this is why it is a bit relevant:
It makes us think back to the 1980′s and 1990′s, when newsletters published in your name contained some very questionable remarks. Among some of the statements in the newsletters?
(If you want to read more, visit TNR or NPR)
Years back, Paul claimed he was the editor and took ownership of all the comments in his newsletters. Now, however, he says that he doesn’t know who wrote them, he claims he does not hold any of those beliefs, and he argues that the whole scandal is irrelevant.
So this means one of two things:
A. Ron Paul, though seemingly popular and influential, is a man of questionable character. OR B. Ron Paul is apparently unable to act as an effective leader, as he can’t control what his employees publish under his name.
People may like some of the things he stands for (smaller government, etc.), but are they need to look back into his past and decide whether or not his comments are something that they want their future President to be linked to. Plus, there is the issue of his extreme foreign policy (among other things), but I won’t get into that…
If you absolutely insist that Paul did not write/think/believe these things that were published in his newletters, then that means he had no control over the people working for him. If he cannot lead a couple dozen people (or even one PR person, if he truly did not Tweet Huntsman himself), then he surely cannot lead the free world.
So, Ron Paul, you’ve had a good run. But I think the more you seem to open your mouth, the more you seem to make the American public question you. Let’s tone down the cocky rhetoric, stop offending people, and make this GOP race a little less of a circus.
Okay, why does an endorsement from Donald Trump mean anything?? Honestly, I think that if Donald endorses you for the GOP candidacy, there is probably something really wrong with you. I don’t think that getting his endorsement is a good thing… the guy is an absolute joke.
Now Trump is supposedly moderating a GOP debate at the end of December… even though he keeps insinuating that he may still run for President. A) Please, Donald. No one wants to see you any more than they already have to. And B) Please, no one watch this debate. I am begging you. He is an absolute headcase and nobody should actually waste their time watching this circus debate.
Ron Paul and Job Huntsman seem to be the only guys that aren’t seeking an endorsement from Trump; in fact, they are speaking out against him. I applaud these two for being the only sane ones in the race at this point. And Huntsman’s interview below made me his #1 fan…
Since addressed the problem of cold, heartless monsters (ahem.. Ann Coulter) earlier in the day, I decided to continue the discussion. Also, since this has to do with the previous GOP debate, there is no better time than now to bring it up (there’s another debate tonight, yes). I don’t know about you, but I can hardly sit still — I’m just so excited to see Perry and Romney bicker like children and Bachmann make up scientific evidence. (Joke…)
But for real: What has happened to compassion and empathy in this country? Republicans are supposedly these uber-Christian, conservative, moral people … if that’s the case, why don’t they act like it? Don’t know what I’m talking about? Here:
Remember the last debate when Wolf Blitzer asked Gov. Perry about Texas’ extremely high execution rate under his leadership… and the audience cheered?
These people obviously don’t care about justice. I truly don’t understand their thinking… do they just want executions to occur because they don’t want to back down from “traditional” Republican views? You can be harsh on crime but still have compassion towards human nature. But this audience’s response was sickening. And acting that way makes the “Tea Party” and the conservative base look like complete idiots who blindly go along with anything.
And then do you remember when Wolf asked Ron Paul about health insurance? He asked Paul if he thought an uninsured man should die… and the audience (albeit not all of them) screamed “Yeah!”?
I don’t know if these Tea Party yahoos were never properly educated or if they skipped Public Relations 101, but here’s a lesson for you: acting that way makes you look like barbaric morons. You think you can shout that and not get butchered by the media the next day? And these “conservatives” that insist our culture is going in the wrong direction under liberal government, yada, yada… where have you been? Last time I checked the Bible taught love and acceptance. Are you just not paying attention or selectively reading certain portions or what? Please explain. You guys are just walking paradoxes.
Hopefully these “outbursts” will not occur tonight — otherwise I will absolutely not be giving the Tea Party the benefit of the doubt anymore. I cannot support a group of people that have lost their ability to help others, walk a mile in their shoes, and act in a morally acceptable way.
Didn’t see the debate last night? Watch the clip below. But you missed out on an hour and a half of pure entertainment.
Plus, you got to tweet your questions to my BFF Wolf Blitzer. I wanted to do it and get on TV, but couldn’t come up with anything good. I asked my dad what I should ask and he said, “Ask: ‘Why do you hate poor people?’” I contemplated, but I don’t think that Wolf would put that one on the top of his list. So I just continued watching and talking to the TV screen by myself.
To summarize:
