Sound Bite Theatre
I watched the CNN/YouTube Republican debate tonight. It is abundantly apparent that what is passed for political debate is not for me. The format of having eight candidates of which two (Tancredo and Duncan) are totally dismissed and a third (Paul), who may be interesting, but is a one-trick pony, answer insipid questions in 30 seconds does not help me determine who I want to be president.
Really, what insight does America glean from the following questions?
- Will you pledge tonight, if elected president, to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally?
- Would you promise to the people watching this right now, that you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you’re president?
Pledges do nothing but provide a gotcha moment. Yes, President Bush (41) was caught in such a pledge.
Isn’t it against the law already to sell products with lead content this high?
Whether the next president owns a gun or not and whether he can rattle off the make, model, caliber, etc. means nothing to whether he is qualified for the job. For the record, Fred Thompson knocked this question out of the park.
Huh?
Huh? What does this have to do with whether or not these men are qualified to run our country?
Yawn! Yes, Giuliani uses 9/11. It’s part of his resume. Should he not cite his work?
I would have paid for one of the candidates to ask, “Who the hell are the Log Cabin Republicans?” How about because as Republicans we share the same core conservative principles.
Another pledge. Really, has America become such a sound bite nation that three pledge questions serve as political debate?
Is that for the candidates to decide?
Is this a federal issue? Rather, it was asked for South Carolina and notice the two candidates who were given that question just happen to be leading in South Carolina. Nothing like setting up the candidates for failure on a non-issue (federally).
Puhllleasssse. This is a Republican debate folks. Shoot, I’m an independent and I don’t want to hear about this.
As I mentioned over at Red Jersey, I would have rather found out the candidates’ preferences for diamonds or pearls.
Interspersed with these questions were campaign commercials solicited by CNN. I gasped audibly when Anderson Cooper announced they would be played throughout the “debate”.
Debates seem to have been reduced to the shallowest of concerns. Some will fault the questioners. ‘Tis true that Americans asked these questions. But it was CNN who selected them. I can’t believe there were not questions of substance to use instead. If there wasn’t, then the YouTube-format should be scrapped immediately. Hmmm . . . that seems like a good idea.
Also blogged on this date . . .
- Date Night - 2009
- Dot . . . Dot . . . Dot . . . - 2009
- Always Learning - 2008
- Enthused - 2007
- Governor, Why? - 2006
- Immature - 2006
- You can't have egg, bacon, spam and sausage without the spam - 2006
- Done - 2005
- Black Friday Caching - 2003

By Shirley
on 29 November 2007 @ 12:26
I agree with you 100% the questions selected by CNN were ridiculous and completely lacked substance. The debate was a complete disappointment. Out of 5,000 questions they were certainly NOT the best CNN could find. I did go through a good number of the submitted questions. Obviously there were a lot that were silly, however there were plenty of very good questions on very important issues that were disregarded for the ones you mentioned. The fault lies with CNN entirely.
By flowers22
on 30 November 2007 @ 15:14
Did you submit a question for consideration?
By Bob
on 30 November 2007 @ 18:09
No, I did not. I have submitted questions for the candidates to YouTube for other programs it has run. Those were ignored.
By flowers22
on 1 December 2007 @ 9:23
Keep trying.