Friday, January 1, 2016

No. The GOP insists that only liberals must run the debates.

Why [don’t] Trump, Carson, Cruise, and Rubio, rent a building somewhere for a debate and invite the media to cover it. Sell 30 second advertising slots to each network for 150,000 a whack[?] Have Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin handle the questioning.[1]
Ultraright is on the right track here.

But no. When voters are interested in hearing about solutions to the nation's problems there's just nothing like "war on women" and "deporting anchor babies with terminal cancer" questions to liven up the debate for ratings. That's what debates are for. To play "gotcha," inject telegenic young lawyers into presidential politics, advance the progressive agenda, and sell advertising.

Couldn't Brian Lamb periodically come out of retirement and fix this? The man was decent and fair in his treatment of people on his C-SPAN shows.

The GOP insists on doing its deer-in-the-headlights imitation every bleeping time and dumps the whole debate process into the laps of progressives and intellectual nonentities. Guaranteed. Who was Candy Crowley anyway?

Without fail we have presidential "debates" that do not bring up

  • odiferous Supreme Court decisions (such as the long-ago disastrous expansion of the scope of the Commerce Clause that twisted the Constitution into a pretzel and handed a blank check to Congress to expand the size of the federal government to the roof tops),
  • vote fraud,
  • the role of big donors in the political process,
  • the role of the Federal Reserve,
  • Keynesian economics,
  • the inability of the U.S. government to control spending and federal debt,
  • the judicial doctrine of original intent,
  • waging undeclared war in Syria,
  • the unconstitutional Department of Education and the EPA,
  • U.S. support for ISIS,
  • the role of Saudi money in American politics,
  • importing foreigners to take the jobs of Americans,
  • the U.S. government's employment of members of the Muslim Brotherhood,
  • Hillary Clinton's employment of a woman with ties to Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood,
  • the sharia's requirement of death for apostasy and how that is consistent with our belief in freedom of conscience,
  • the shariah requirement for supremacy over infidel law and how a Muslim can swear truthfully in a naturalization proceeding,
  • ending affirmative discrimination,
  • stopping not expanding all immigration,
  • black racism and criminality,
  • welfare parasitism as a formula for national suicide,
  • the devastation of our cities by the black underclass, and
  • how free speech can be protected against the assaults of homosexual zealots and progressives.
Maybe there are other questions that could be asked.

Notes
[1] Comment by ultraright on "Rush Limbaugh Taken Back By Caller’s ‘Brilliant Point’: ‘Wait a Second…You Are Spot On Here.’" By Oliver Darcy, The Blaze, 11/3/15.

6 comments:

  1. "Trump, Carson, Cruise, and Rubio"
    If they can bring in Tom Cruise, that could well attract the votes of at least some of the arousal-gappers!

    ReplyDelete
  2. :-)

    I think Pee-wee Herman could bring a great deal to the table here. Could he do any worse is the real question.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Love your bullet points Colonel.

    Why didn't someone sic a [sic] after Cruise? Daniel Day is usually more nuanced than you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, PF. I should have seen the "Cruise" mistake but didn't.

    On the bullet points, on go crazy listening to the pundits and politicians. They scratch at the surface of issues and deliberately stay away from the real issues. Merkel, for example, says "We can handle this" but never, ever addresses the fact that the European borders are open. That's as immutable as the phases of the moon. I think she thinks that raising people from the dead would be easier than that.

    I don't strive for nuance, it's true. The two-by-four is my instrument of choice but do I indulge in the occasional effort to inject subtlety. It's why my blog numbers go through the roof the way they do.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. LOL. The seeming nuance comment was a friendly double-entendre nod to Daniel Day who, before your time here, used the pseudonym of precisely the last four words of my last comment. He, myself and Fran may have been the only ones who knew that. It was either unnuanced that he commented on a misspelling or it was nuanced that he noticed. It was all in fun.

    You go right on hitting the jackasses with your 2x4 Colonel. We all cheer when you do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, I was unnuanced there, chaffing you about the misspelling, Col., but I think all your readers including me knew who you meant. Pascal speaks for me in that last paragraph.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.