Republicans Scared to Debate

PoliticsSeptember 2010 • Views: 2,872

It’s the new GOP campaigning style: do everything possible to avoid being forced to defend your extreme positions. By dodging the media and opponents they can continue pandering to the far right base, while avoiding the risk of having those extreme positions become common knowledge. It’s an implicit admission that they aren’t going to win over any centrists or undecided voters; they’re not even trying. And that’s probably a smart move politically, because every time someone like Sharron Angle or Rand Paul lets their real views slip out, their poll numbers take a dive.

Now we can add Steve King to the list of Republican demagogues who are afraid to debate their opponents: King says Democratic opponent hasn’t ‘earned’ debate.

SIOUX CITY - Political theater intruded into Iowa 5th District Congressman Steve King’s town hall meeting Monday when Democratic Party opponent Matt Campbell showed up and challenged King to a debate.

Campbell, who said King has ignored repeated requests for a debate, walked in midway through the hourlong meeting and stood about 10 feet from King’s podium. King finished answering the prior question about conducting an audit of the Federal Reserve System, then addressed Campbell, without naming him at any point in the exchange.

“There aren’t going to be any ambushes or interruptions,” King said from the podium at Western Iowa Tech Community College before allowing Campbell to ask his question.

After Campbell pressed King to agree to a debate, the Republican from Kiron, Iowa, replied: “…My answer to that is that judging by the way you have conducted yourself you have not earned it.”

Jump to bottom

88 comments

Cannadian Club Akbar Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:29:18am

Most politicians won't answer a question without a vote from some poll. They can all go fuck themselves. Be it Democrat or Republican.

bratwurst Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:30:22am

Huh...after Jan Brewer the other night you would think that everyone else would be dying to get out there and appear to have a silver tongue by comparison!

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:32:11am

Who watches these small debates anyway? The presidential debates are the only ones that get some people interesting in watching.

Romantic Heretic Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:32:36am

These people believe they hold The Truth. (Add a cool sound effect here.)

The Truth is so obvious how could it be debated? /

Cannadian Club Akbar Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:36:58am

re: #4 Romantic Heretic

These people believe they hold The Truth. (Add a cool sound effect here.)

The Truth is so obvious how could it be debated? /

I only hate the Polish.
/

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:37:02am

re: #4 Romantic Heretic

These people believe they hold The Truth. (Add a cool sound effect here.)

The Truth is so obvious how could it be debated? /

Here's an idea...put electric dog collars on them and when they get caught lying they get zapped.

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:38:15am

re: #6 NJDhockeyfan

Yeah... but who is the decider?

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:38:18am

Going outside...later lizards!

Cannadian Club Akbar Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:38:31am

OT-Great. It raining again

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:38:39am

re: #7 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Yeah... but who is the decider?

Larry King!

Cannadian Club Akbar Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:41:49am

OK. Out for a while. I need to find a new job.

mj Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:46:04am

It's not just Republicans that are afraid to debate. Unfortunately, it's a time-honored tradition of candidates from both parties:

Illinois Senate hopeful pulls out of Israel forum

August 15, 2010
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Illinois Democratic Party's candidate for the U.S. Senate will no longer participate in a forum on Israel.

Alexi Giannoulias, the state treasurer, withdrew Aug. 9 from the Aug. 22 forum, sponsored by the Protect Our Heritage public action committee and 16 other Jewish organizations. His campaign said he had prior commitments.

The nonpartisan forum is held for Senate and House candidates. Participants can question the candidates on issues related to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Giannoulias, his Republican opponent, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), and other local politicians had agreed to participate in the forum months ago. Giannoulias' campaign had confirmed his availability for the forum in Northbrook, Ill., according to Protect Our Heritage...

[Link: jta.org...]

wrenchwench Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:48:56am

This was said about Ron Paul:

“That’s a political skill,” Blumel jokes, “triangulating between the sane and the insane and keeping them both on board.”

But that seems to be the old strategy. The new one is to cultivate and expand on the insane base, and forget about the sane. They're now out of reach.

Ojoe Sat, Sep 4, 2010 10:54:30am

Down with both major parties.

Pffiibbittth.™

What combined grade would you give them, for the state of the country now, knowing that they have had the governance of it all between them for more than a century?

Have they been cooperating for the common good? Are they even capable of that any more?

deranged cat Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:01:25am

i think in addition to refusing to debate, they also like running away from the press:
Sharron Angle running away in June
Sharron Angle running away in July
Jan Brewer running away

Ogami Itto Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:03:31am

The current crop of Republican political candidates makes me long for the days of Bob Dole or Jack Kemp -- and I don't mean that in a good way. ;-)

lostlakehiker Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:09:57am

Evidently many Republicans calculate that the less the campaign is about their own positions and the more it's about the job the Democrats have done, the better.

That's probably good thinking at the tactical level.

At the strategic level, it's totally wrong-headed. You can maybe win office on the other guy's record, but you can't lead if you can't even say where you want to lead to.

jamesfirecat Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:16:53am

And this is the party that is on track to clean up come November....

lostlakehiker Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:18:21am

re: #14 Ojoe

Down with both major parties.

Pffiibbittth.™

What combined grade would you give them, for the state of the country now, knowing that they have had the governance of it all between them for more than a century?

Have they been cooperating for the common good? Are they even capable of that any more?

Umm, B? It's no fair to grade in the abstract. Grade, instead, on the curve. How has our own political leadership done, compared to the other long-standing liberal democracies in large and/or populous first-world nations?

Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Spain, say? Where do we rank, taking things all in all and over the last 30 years?

If we go back 100 years, of course Japan and Germany get F's, Britain pulls out an A for having stood up to Germany, France gets a D for having not, and Spain and Italy get D's for having backed the wrong horse. And we get a B+.

Yes, we govern ourselves badly compared to what we ought to be doing. But compared to how others do, we have, sigh, company.

Ojoe Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:18:28am

Readers who agree with some of the statements in this thread might want to join the Modern Whig party.

jamesfirecat Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:18:53am

re: #6 NJDhockeyfan

Here's an idea...put electric dog collars on them and when they get caught lying they get zapped.

Dave Barry had a better idea a few years back, Sodium Pentathol, of course the problem with that is we might discover that some of these people honestly and really believe they're telling the truth.....

jamesfirecat Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:20:35am

re: #14 Ojoe

Down with both major parties.

Pffiibbittth.™

What combined grade would you give them, for the state of the country now, knowing that they have had the governance of it all between them for more than a century?

Have they been cooperating for the common good? Are they even capable of that any more?

No they haven't because they no longer seem to live in the same reality or agree on what the common good is...

Ojoe Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:21:00am

re: #17 lostlakehiker

Well in the long range I could hand out a B. But imagine if the current jokers of both parties had been in charge during WW2.

I have recently asked this question to quite a few people, and they almost always answer D or F, and sometimes with scorn in their voices.

Ojoe Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:22:39am

re: #19 lostlakehiker

Fine post by the way.

jamesfirecat Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:22:59am

re: #16 Ogami Itto

The current crop of Republican political candidates makes me long for the days of Bob Dole or Jack Kemp -- and I don't mean that in a good way. ;-)

Well Bob Dole lost the election and Bob Dole also lost the ability to say the letter (sound of someone gargling) Bob Dole still remembers on the day of his marriage he said "Bob Dole do" and then Bob Dole gave Liddy Dole a diamond so small it was invisible to the naked Bob Dole.....

allegro Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:23:07am

re: #17 lostlakehiker

You can maybe win office on the other guy's record, but you can't lead if you can't even say where you want to lead to.

I haven't seen any recognizable evidence that the Republicans have had any desire to actually lead in decades. Power, absolutely. Leadership, not so much.

Ojoe Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:25:15am

re: #26 allegro

A politician thinks of the next election,

a leader thinks of the next generation.

jamesfirecat Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:29:22am

re: #14 Ojoe

Down with both major parties.

Pffiibbittth.™

What combined grade would you give them, for the state of the country now, knowing that they have had the governance of it all between them for more than a century?

Have they been cooperating for the common good? Are they even capable of that any more?

I think its unfair to give both parties the same grade.

I'd give the Democrats somewhere between a B- and a C+ for effort and actually managing to get a thing or two (Health Care Reform, Wallstreet regulation, some stimulus for an economy badly in need of it...)

I give the Republicans a big fat F for lining up behind those who wish our country (or at least our President) to fail (Rush Limbaugh) in both word and deed....

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:29:30am

re: #21 jamesfirecat

Dave Barry had a better idea a few years back, Sodium Pentathol, of course the problem with that is we might discover that some of these people honestly and really believe they're telling the truth...

The Twilight Zone episode "The Whole Truth" had a great idea.

Youtube Video

jamesfirecat Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:30:46am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

The Twilight Zone episode "The Whole Truth" had a great idea.

[Video]

I'm willing to bet that episode had at least a hand in helping make Liar Liar...

the yankee Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:33:42am

I can understand a little why they dont want to debate nuance is something that gets lost by the electorate and the masses tend to hear it the way they want. Like Al Gore inventing the internet.

But since it seems like ever one in the senate and the house were running for the next election nuance has almost become endangered like the elephant or the eagle.

lostlakehiker Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:33:56am

re: #23 Ojoe

Well in the long range I could hand out a B. But imagine if the current jokers of both parties had been in charge during WW2.

I have recently asked this question to quite a few people, and they almost always answer D or F, and sometimes with scorn in their voices.

We wouldn't be electing their likes if we knew we faced that kind of a challenge. The voters rise to the occasion and elect somebody they'd never pick in more congenial times.

Look at Britain. The moment the crisis was over, the electorate turned Winston out of office.

Stanghazi Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:36:28am

LOL Charles just tweeted a Michele Bahmann donate page!

[Link: bachmannforcongress.com...]

allegro Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:37:41am

re: #33 Stanley Sea

That sounds like something she would say.

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:38:16am

re: #17 lostlakehiker

Hopefully the Dems learned that during the last election.

Actually, I am wrong... Last election the Dems just had a long list of crap they could never do.

Varek Raith Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:39:50am

re: #35 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Hopefully the Dems learned that during the last election.

Actually, I am wrong... Last election the Dems just had a long list of crap they could never do.

Heh. True.
Though, the Rs seem to not have a list at all!
:P

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:40:36am

re: #35 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Hopefully the Dems learned that during the last election.

Actually, I am wrong... Last election the Dems just had a long list of crap they could never do.

That was George Bush's fault! For the past year and a half they've owned the Senate, House, and White House and still can't get shit done. This is also George Bush's fault!

ThomasLite Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:41:48am

re: #34 allegro

That sounds like something she would say.

beats the usual quotes :)

Varek Raith Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:42:02am

re: #37 NJDhockeyfan

That was George Bush's fault! For the past year and a half they've owned the Senate, House, and White House and still can't get shit done. This is also George Bush's fault!

You're surprised by this behavior?
It's SOP.
When the Rs are in control, they'll blame everything on Obama.
Wheee.

Stanghazi Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:42:02am

re: #37 NJDhockeyfan

That was George Bush's fault! For the past year and a half they've owned the Senate, House, and White House and still can't get shit done. This is also George Bush's fault!

I love the can't get shit done claim.

Puleeze. Who votes no?

And even with that, a lot of shit got done.

It's like alternate universe stuff.

Ogami Itto Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:42:22am

re: #26 allegro

And when they take over the House (and possibly Senate) the only thing they'll be leading is one ~~witchhunt~~ Congressional investigation after another. It'll be just like the 90s, but with a lousy economy and an (unwinnable?) war as a bonus prize!

Renaissance_Man Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:42:26am

re: #14 Ojoe

Down with both major parties.

Pffiibbittth.™

What combined grade would you give them, for the state of the country now, knowing that they have had the governance of it all between them for more than a century?

Have they been cooperating for the common good? Are they even capable of that any more?

Grading the parties for their leadership, or lackthereof, is almost irrelevant. The truth is that they have been elected, and once in office, performed exactly as the American people have asked them to. In other words, they have done exactly as we have asked of them, which is to entertain us.

The political system is such that no politician, no matter how singular a person he may be, can be elected and govern while not only telling us the hard truths, but acting upon them. The electorate will not tolerate that. It's not entertaining, it's not interesting, and it won't play well in the media.

America's politicians have, at best, a minor share of the blame for the ills of the country. The will of the elctorate, its slavish devotion to its own entertainment, and the complicity of the all-powerful media in providing that entertainment are much, much more responsible.

thatthatisis Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:43:19am

The Republican in Charles' original post said he would not debate the Democrat because the Democrat hadn't earned it.

Rand Paul now only speaks to Fox, or its local equivalent. Sharron Angle will only speak to Fox. Jan Brewer will only talk to Fox, or give one debate - but only to qualify for $1.7 something milllion. I believe Fiorina is doing the same thing.

Say what you will about the national press, they do ask question which we as citizens don't get the chance to. If the Republicans only speak to Fox and address softball non-questions, how is our democracy served? It's not whether the Democrats have earned a debate - the real issue is whether WE'VE earned it. And I think we have.

Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:45:03am

re: #33 Stanley Sea

LOL Charles just tweeted a Michele Bahmann donate page!

[Link: bachmannforcongress.com...]

Is that Latin?

Stanghazi Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:45:37am

re: #44 Killgore Trout

Is that Latin?

I don't know! I tried to look it up, but failed. Maybe it's computer code-ish?

allegro Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:46:35am

re: #41 Ogami Itto

And when they take over the House (and possibly Senate) the only thing they'll be leading is one witchhunt Congressional investigation after another. It'll be just like the 90s, but with a lousy economy and an (unwinnable?) war as a bonus prize!

Considering the stated desires of Michelle et al, your prediction may be unfortunately correct. One can still hope for better.

(I know, I know... call me Pollyanna)

allegro Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:49:35am

re: #45 Stanley Sea

I don't know! I tried to look it up, but failed. Maybe it's computer code-ish?

It looks like the gibberish that is placed on website templates as an example of what the page will look like. The idea is to place ACTUAL text on the page. But considering what Bachmann has to say typically, it wouldn't make any more sense.

Varek Raith Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:51:41am

re: #45 Stanley Sea

I don't know! I tried to look it up, but failed. Maybe it's computer code-ish?

Yeesh.

Lorem itself pain he is amet consectetur to come up to elit. Curabitur a a hollow he is amet before rhoncus some. Consequently vestibulum mi this pregnant time augue ligula venenatis mi , and to come up to lorem before good skirmish. But not diam a tortor to congeal mattis. Upon transitory lorem upon sometimes annoyance elit worthless hendrerit region , life dust massa orci life

This was run through a Latin to English page...
So...
?

Renaissance_Man Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:52:09am

It's the standard dummy text used as a placeholder in typesetting.

Lorem Ipsum

Varek Raith Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:52:32am

re: #49 Renaissance_Man

It's the standard dummy text used as a placeholder in typesetting.

Lorem Ipsum

Lol.
Thanks!
Beta page is beta!

Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:53:36am

re: #48 Varek Raith

Yeesh.

This was run through a Latin to English page...
So...
?

Sounds like the Necronomicon.

Boondock St. Bender Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:56:07am

well.as stated before.if you have a lead in the polls.giving your opponent a debate is not a good idea.that being said though,you can work a strategy of trying to embarrass your opponent into debating.
The national party has plenty of cash,they should target some of these races with advertising calling out the front runner(humor usually is the best way to approach this sort of thing,as a good laugh can create a buzz about the ads.)

Stanghazi Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:56:18am

re: #49 Renaissance_Man

It's the standard dummy text used as a placeholder in typesetting.

Lorem Ipsum

It really did look familiar. Word Docs probably.

WOOPS Rep. Bachmann (R-Mars)

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:57:15am

Just spent about 20 minutes finely dicing some veggies to go in an omelet...

Then saute'd the veggies, to ready them. A rainbow of colors. Lovely.

Then, totally screwed the pooch on the eggs...

So, I am having egg/veggie scramble with cheese on top.

Tastes like an omelet tho.

thatthatisis Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:57:41am

My husband reads Latin, and agrees with allegro's comment, that this is not Latin but is that text stand in.

Actually, it's the most sense she's made for the past several years. I'm almost ready to donate.

Boondock St. Bender Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:57:52am

re: #47 allegro

bachman has a tweet page??
i can imagine what that looks like...full of cheeze doodle smears and crazy

Obdicut Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:58:52am

re: #52 Boondock St. Bender

Also, if you're kind of stupid and incoherent, it's wise to avoid debates.

Boondock St. Bender Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:59:23am

re: #54 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

on the plus side,it should still taste the same!

Boondock St. Bender Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:59:43am

re: #57 Obdicut

at all costs!

Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 4, 2010 11:59:48am

re: #54 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Just spent about 20 minutes finely dicing some veggies to go in an omelet...

Then saute'd the veggies, to ready them. A rainbow of colors. Lovely.

Then, totally screwed the pooch on the eggs...

So, I am having egg/veggie scramble with cheese on top.

Tastes like an omelet tho.

It happens. Just call it a Frittata and it's all good.

Boondock St. Bender Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:02:06pm

re: #60 Killgore Trout

killgore,somehow that just sounds wrong...

"hey baby,would you like a frittata?"
"SMACK!"

wee fury Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:04:47pm

re: #43 thatthatisis

The Republican in Charles' original post said he would not debate the Democrat because the Democrat hadn't earned it.

Rand Paul now only speaks to Fox, or its local equivalent. Sharron Angle will only speak to Fox. Jan Brewer will only talk to Fox, or give one debate - but only to qualify for $1.7 something milllion. I believe Fiorina is doing the same thing.

Say what you will about the national press, they do ask question which we as citizens don't get the chance to. If the Republicans only speak to Fox and address softball non-questions, how is our democracy served? It's not whether the Democrats have earned a debate - the real issue is whether WE'VE earned it. And I think we have.

In 2007 the see who would not debate on FOX
[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]
So, a person just never knows.

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:05:02pm

re: #43 thatthatisis

The Republican in Charles' original post said he would not debate the Democrat because the Democrat hadn't earned it.

Rand Paul now only speaks to Fox, or its local equivalent. Sharron Angle will only speak to Fox. Jan Brewer will only talk to Fox, or give one debate - but only to qualify for $1.7 something milllion. I believe Fiorina is doing the same thing.

Say what you will about the national press, they do ask question which we as citizens don't get the chance to. If the Republicans only speak to Fox and address softball non-questions, how is our democracy served? It's not whether the Democrats have earned a debate - the real issue is whether WE'VE earned it. And I think we have.

You really need to watch more than just Fox News...there are other alternatives.

Rand Paul interviewed on MSNBC

Sharron Angle interviewed on NBC

Jan Brewer interviewed on CNN

Carly Fiorina interviewed on CNBC

ErikJ76 Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:06:12pm

re: #32 lostlakehiker

We wouldn't be electing their likes if we knew we faced that kind of a challenge. The voters rise to the occasion and elect somebody they'd never pick in more congenial times.

Look at Britain. The moment the crisis was over, the electorate turned Winston out of office.

Looks like the US is heading for a double dip recession, and another stock market crash. And the voters are going to reward the party that has done all it can do to obstruct and promises to do even more of it.

Sure, it's not WW2, but the failure to address these issues while have serious lasting consequences.

ErikJ76 Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:10:01pm

re: #63 NJDhockeyfan

You really need to watch more than just Fox News...there are other alternatives.

Rand Paul interviewed on MSNBC

Sharron Angle interviewed on NBC

Jan Brewer interviewed on CNN

Carly Fiorina interviewed on CNBC

Jane Brewer's interview is from June.
Sharron Angel's from end of June.
Carly Fiorina's from June.
Rand Paul got interviewed in May.

Do you see a pattern?

wee fury Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:11:15pm

Off on a trip. Later!

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:18:02pm

re: #65 ErikJ76

Jane Brewer's interview is from June.
Sharron Angel's from end of June.
Carly Fiorina's from June.
Rand Paul got interviewed in May.

Do you see a pattern?

Lets see...three interviews in June and one in May. Oh my god, congratulations, you cracked the code! Holy shit, I missed that!

/I need to work on my algebra more...

ErikJ76 Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:29:42pm

re: #67 NJDhockeyfan

Lets see...three interviews in June and one in May. Oh my god, congratulations, you cracked the code! Holy shit, I missed that!

/I need to work on my algebra more...

You said that there were other alternatives. And then you pointed to four interviews that are between two and almost three and a half months old. In a sense I guess that proves the point about them hiding. Do you recall what happened during Rand Paul's interview on MSNBC? The questions he got and the campaign's reaction afterwards? Who has been allowed to interview him since? Who gets to interview Brewer, Angel and Fiorina?

Better to just let right wing bloggers, Limbaugh, and the voice of the GOP, Fox News, to interview them. No pesky questions asked.

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:36:50pm

re: #43 thatthatisis

Rand Paul now only speaks to Fox, or its local equivalent. Sharron Angle will only speak to Fox. Jan Brewer will only talk to Fox, or give one debate - but only to qualify for $1.7 something milllion. I believe Fiorina is doing the same thing.

The Lowells speak only to the Cabots, and the Cabots speak only to God.

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:41:21pm

re: #68 ErikJ76

You said that there were other alternatives. And then you pointed to four interviews that are between two and almost three and a half months old. In a sense I guess that proves the point about them hiding. Do you recall what happened during Rand Paul's interview on MSNBC? The questions he got and the campaign's reaction afterwards? Who has been allowed to interview him since? Who gets to interview Brewer, Angel and Fiorina?

Better to just let right wing bloggers, Limbaugh, and the voice of the GOP, Fox News, to interview them. No pesky questions asked.

You said they are only doing interviews with Fox news. I posted recent interviews with news organizations other than Fox and you aren't happy about it. Now you want me to explain what they discussed in each interview?

/Man, is it a full moon today? The batshit nuts are out today.

Obdicut Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:42:55pm

re: #70 NJDhockeyfan

You didn't actually post recent interviews, no.

Romantic Heretic Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:50:53pm

re: #42 Renaissance_Man

Grading the parties for their leadership, or lackthereof, is almost irrelevant. The truth is that they have been elected, and once in office, performed exactly as the American people have asked them to. In other words, they have done exactly as we have asked of them, which is to entertain us.

The political system is such that no politician, no matter how singular a person he may be, can be elected and govern while not only telling us the hard truths, but acting upon them. The electorate will not tolerate that. It's not entertaining, it's not interesting, and it won't play well in the media.

America's politicians have, at best, a minor share of the blame for the ills of the country. The will of the elctorate, its slavish devotion to its own entertainment, and the complicity of the all-powerful media in providing that entertainment are much, much more responsible.

*Applauds loudly*

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:53:11pm

re: #71 Obdicut

You didn't actually post recent interviews, no.

You mean they were an entire 6 or 8 weeks ago? You're right. I thought they might have been from this summer or something. My bad.
/

Romantic Heretic Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:53:24pm

re: #51 Killgore Trout

Sounds like the Necronomicon.

That explains why the building next door fell down. Blasted Cthonians.

ErikJ76 Sat, Sep 4, 2010 12:57:02pm

re: #70 NJDhockeyfan

When you posted the links you didn't reply to me, minor issue, but I just want to point it out. And as already pointed out by Obdicut, these aren't recent interviews, especially considering that these are candidates looking to be elected either governor, or to the US congress in less than two months. The election is closer to now than the interviews you posted are to now.

Has Rand Paul, since the MSNBC interview, been interviewed by anyone who wouldn't fit into the group I constructed? Why is that?

They are trying to run out the clock. Simple as that.

webevintage Sat, Sep 4, 2010 1:30:27pm

I think it is important to note that King does not get to decide who has "earned" a right to debate him.
The voters do and they did when Cambell won the primary.
It is also important to note that King NEVER debates his opponent.
It's bullshit.
The debates are for the voters and by not taking part in local debates King is telling voters to fuck off.
Maybe everyone should have to debate to get matching money like Brewer did. At least you get to hear them once in a forum that is better then softball interviews or crappy ads on TV.
I'd never vote for a candidate who was too weak to engage in a couple of debates.

(and I don't care if Dems told FOX to fuck off in 2007, that is not the same thing. They did do debates....just not on FOX.)

sagehen Sat, Sep 4, 2010 2:11:30pm

So much for the marketplace of ideas, huh?

When you know the voters don't want what you're selling, it's best not to let them get too close a look at it.

Ojoe Sat, Sep 4, 2010 4:02:20pm

I am getting a hunch these days that Obama will decline to run for a second term, FWIW.

elbruce Sat, Sep 4, 2010 4:07:07pm

re: #78 Ojoe

I am getting a hunch these days that Obama will decline to run for a second term, FWIW.

That would be really stupid. He's got plenty of time left, and he actually seems to be more aware of the window in which to pace himself than the rest of us are.

sagehen Sat, Sep 4, 2010 4:39:34pm

re: #78 Ojoe

I am getting a hunch these days that Obama will decline to run for a second term, FWIW.

Why the hell would he do that?

Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president -- and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson. The deep dysfunction of our politics may have produced public disdain, but it has also delivered record accomplishment.

As of *eight months ago*. And this op-ed is by Norman Ornstein, hardly an Obama booster.

ErikJ76 Sat, Sep 4, 2010 4:57:10pm

re: #78 Ojoe

I am getting a hunch these days that Obama will decline to run for a second term, FWIW.

US presidents declining to run for a second term
Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, Polk, Buchanan, Hayes, and Coolidge

US presidents failing to win renomination
Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, A Johnson, Arthur, Lyndon Johnson

(Lyndon Johnson quit after the first primary in 1968, which he won, but not comfortable enough)

That, what sagehen wrote, and the extra boost incumbency gives the president in a general election, makes me seriously doubt that he would not run again.

My hunch would be that Obama and the democrats will make republican obstruction a major issue in the 2012 election, and that they are going to bring up reforming the senate rules. Because if the senate is having a hard time doing anything with 59 democrats, that's nothing compared to a senate with 51-54 democrats.

elbruce Sat, Sep 4, 2010 5:31:28pm

One thing I noticed about Obama early on is that he seems to have a much better sense of pacing than most people give him credit for. I can think of a number of instances during the 2008 campaign when he seemed to hand over control of the weekly news cycle to McCain and let them say all sorts of crazy shit unchallenged. Then he'd come out late Friday or first thing Monday and deliver a counterattack that basically hung them with the rope he had let them spool out. This after I had spent the entire week, sometimes through the weekend freaking out about what the other side was getting away with. Around that time, this image started popping up on the Internet.

Image: page0_blog_entry205-obama-i-got-this.jpg

It's something that can be easy to forget when his critics are holding the floor, which they are right now.

In terms of 2012, by then Obama will have completely shut down one war, will be starting to wind down another (if his timetable holds) and regular people will start to feel the beneficial impact of health care reform and the new financial and consumer-protection rules. If the economy's steadily recovering at that point, he'll be sitting pretty.

And those are just the big-ticket, above-the-fold items. He's also done a huge amount of smaller things too. As Clinton's presidency demonstrated, a lot of little efforts can add up to a huge positive impact by themselves.

Right now, Obama seems to be far more focused on racking up accomplishments than advertising them. But when re-election time comes, that'll give him a lot more stuff to run his next campaign on. I'd like him to blow his own horn more often right now, but that wouldn't do anything but make me feel better about his future prospects; it wouldn't actually affect those prospects.

sagehen Sat, Sep 4, 2010 5:46:06pm

Obama does indeed have a *huge* list of accomplishments already.

But if Netanyahu and Abbas can come to terms, all those previous accomplishments will be the trivial icing on the cake. Any complaints the GOP (especially the neocons) dares to voice about Obama at that point will be seen by all rational people -- and a fair percentage of the not even rational -- as so much sour grapes.

elbruce Sat, Sep 4, 2010 7:00:58pm

re: #83 sagehen

But if Netanyahu and Abbas can come to terms, all those previous accomplishments will be the trivial icing on the cake.

Heck, even if they're still continuing in productive talks. Even if a given item doesn't get done, as long as there's some progress to be shown that's a lot better than nothing.

I think the Netanyahu/Abbas talks are the chance at history that was offered to Hillary as a consolation prize. We haven't seen much of her until now.

Sol Berdinowitz Sun, Sep 5, 2010 1:23:06am

It isn't the opposing candidate who has "earned" or "deserves" a debate, ti is the voting public, and in this person's opinion, they are unworthy...

RogueOne Sun, Sep 5, 2010 4:56:27am

re: #79 elbruce

That would be really stupid. He's got plenty of time left, and he actually seems to be more aware of the window in which to pace himself than the rest of us are.

His not running for a second term is crazy talk but I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that he's "pacing" himself. In 2 years he's done his level best to push through as much of the left-wing wish list as he can. Charles in his post suggested Repubs aren't going to win any centrist voters (more crazy talk) but they're winning the moderates by default in huge numbers. The biggest reason (besides the "enthusiasm gap") that repubs are going to crush the dems this season is due to the fleeing of the moderates away from the dems.

sagehen Sun, Sep 5, 2010 11:24:05am

re: #86 RogueOne

Nah.

The biggest reason the repubs are going to do well this season is the economy. unemployment. That's also the second biggest reason, and the third biggest reason. In fact, it pretty much sweeps the top ten of reasons.

Centrists and moderates aren't ideological, almost by definition. They don't care about political theory. They care about do they have a job, and do their friends have jobs.

ClaudeMonet Mon, Sep 6, 2010 1:49:30am

re: #81 ErikJ76

US presidents declining to run for a second term
Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, Polk, Buchanan, Hayes, and Coolidge

US presidents failing to win renomination
Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, A Johnson, Arthur, Lyndon Johnson

(Lyndon Johnson quit after the first primary in 1968, which he won, but not comfortable enough)

That, what sagehen wrote, and the extra boost incumbency gives the president in a general election, makes me seriously doubt that he would not run again.

My hunch would be that Obama and the democrats will make republican obstruction a major issue in the 2012 election, and that they are going to bring up reforming the senate rules. Because if the senate is having a hard time doing anything with 59 democrats, that's nothing compared to a senate with 51-54 democrats.

Some historians think that LBJ quit not because of Gene McCarthy's stronger-than-expected showing in New Hampshire in 1968, but because he had just received the news that he had cancer. I've also read that he didn't mention it publicly because he didn't want to cause further disruption of the political process in an already tumultuous year, or to help his VP, Hubert Humphrey, whom he openly loathed.

If someone has any information on the latter, I'd appreciate knowing when he got the news.

Also, the accounts I've read of the election of 1876 (Hayes vs. Tilden) said that one of the conditions of the Democrats not making further efforts to challenge the Hayes "victory" was that Hayes would not run again.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Republicans Scared to Debate

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud