Debating the Debates
Our favorite make-up lady, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniels, is whining publicly again.
Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel excoriated the Commission on Presidential Debates in a letter on Tuesday, threatening to advise any future Republican nominee against participating in general election presidential debates unless significant changes are made to the commission.
Before I begin reading the news story, I knew for a damn fact that they wanted to make the debate impossible because Republicans don’t have policy or a platform. There’s only so many times you can give your enemies silly names and say patriot and beautiful without beginning to sound like bully with limited verbal skills.
But, here’s the deal. They think that the people who moderate the debates are all leftwing partisans. I’m pretty sure they will demand that Tucker Carlson host all the debates, and General John Kelly on the nights Tucker is getting his hair done.
They are also upset that during last the last election they shut off the microphone of the person who wasn’t speaking. That was so unfair to their candidate, who talks all the time.
And, here’s the big one.
At one point, the letter lauds Trump for “his background in television” because it led him to realize that the acrylic glass shields the commission was using to combat the coronavirus would cause the candidates to see their reflections once the stage was lit.
“Had it not been caught by the President of the United States, the CPD’s unforced error would have caused a surprising and awkward distraction for both candidates once the cameras started to roll,” she writes.
Okay, first of all, it wouldn’t have bothered her candidate at all because vampires can’t see their reflection. Second of all, her candidate is overcome with his own beautiful when he sees himself. Yeah, it’s awkward but definitely not a distraction.
So, I guess I’m back to what I suspected first. No policy or platform.
“… would cause the candidates to see their reflections…”
I imagine Ronna believes Trump would have had an uncontrollable urge to mutter under his breath but with lips moving “mirror mirror on the wall, who’s the winningest of them all?”
1The “Commission on Presidential Debates” ought to be renamed to the Commission on Joint Press Conferences. And if Ronna [maiden name cancelled] McDaniel wants to advise candidates, I’m sure that will get all the consideration it deserves.
Is the Commission ideal? I’m betting nearly anyone paying attention would have “improvements” for the institution or its processes.
For example, I think it would be better if there were not “topic areas” for the debates, but an actual debate topic that provides a direction of change, such as “The US should have a foreign policy requiring fewer international commitments.” Then give participants 5 minutes to say yes or no and provide reasons, and then have journalists ask two or three questions of each candidate.
Or, more typical of the actual work of the President, have a topic and 5 experts with diverse views on that topic. Have each candidate ask 10 minutes of questions of the group, give them 10 minutes to prepare a position, and then give a 5 minute speech announcing a decision based on the advice they were given.
2Still wondering if all those Repub voters for Trump actually understood that there was no policy platform for him this time around. Instead, they simply re-ran the stuff from 2016. I guess thats called recycling.
3Typical Rethuglikan ‘pre-emptive deflection and diversion’, and roughing the refs; they’re extremely good at it.
.
But y’all need some levity [ take your meds first if at risk of some condition that could ‘laugh you to death’], cannot pick out a fav, they’re all a hoot; the peacock v. car stands out :
Dogs Being Jerks:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/6/2/2032373/-Wednesday-Woozles-Dogs-Being-Jerks
How about this one :
4https://images.dailykos.com/images/950840/large/Bad-Dog-25.jpg?1622099307
Perhaps we should have Ronna debate Jaime Harrison – I’d lay in the beer and popcorn for that!
5Those pesky questions about policy and governance that none of their candidates can answer, although they’ve already made their bed with a crook. They should be more worried about their orange leader’s pending indictment(s). He might have to answer questions through very thick glass this time. They can send ftucker carlson or whoever they wish. I’m looking forward to an “American Greed” episode by the time we need to worry about presidential debates.
6Methinks some poor whiney baby doesn’t like being forced to prepare for debates. ‘membering stuff is hard.
7I’m finding it totally confusing about the Trump’s background on TV would give him the awareness of how the divider’s would do anything. I seriously doubt that any set Trump was on had such dividers in play so that he would be familiar with what they would do.
I know I’m focusing on the bark instead of the forest…but gob-smacked at choice in arguments or belief in Trump’s observations that are not himself looking in the mirror or his cell phone.
8I would like to go back to having the debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters.
When the Democrats and Republicans got together to make sure no independent candidate would be allowed to debate, we all lost.
9John @ 2, reading your comment, I was reminded of an episode of Newsroom when Sorkin’s bunch tried to sell a debate format to the RNC that actually challenged the candidates in 2012.
10They were not amused.
They knew that anything vaguely requiring coherent, informed answers would eviscerate their candidates.
Some more than others, but none would agree to it.
In a final montage, they played a clip from a debate they did agree to.
Michelle Bachman was asked a hard hitting question.
IIRC it was Johnny Cash or (some other country singer)?
Her answer?
“Ooo, that’s a tough one.
Both “
Well done old man!
Dragging your entire family and every friend you know to prison with you.
And That’s Not All…
He could still be re elected as he’s still on the ballot!!!!!
MSNBC Live: U.S. Attorney Announces Charges Against Rep. Chris Collins | NBC News
Video:
11https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcEBg64fY0k
There hasn’t been any reason for a televised event in about twenty years.
12This is brier patch stuff.
You do not debate liars. You do not debate seditionists. You defeat them.
The platform itself legitimizes the crazies.
13Suzanne Melton: Agreed! Plus the League of Women Voters put together pamphlets about the races, outlining the policy positions of the candidates in a non-partisan way. Which is probably why that can’t be done nowadays. When the Republicans can’t even put together a party platform for the presidential election, you know only one part is serious.
[Thanks for mentioning LOWV. I was going to, but was afraid it would sound too much like an old man ranting “but things were better in my day”.]
14