While much of the United Kingdom has condemned the sight of 8-year-olds fighting in cages, Satan feels that the Republican presidential candidates should take a page from their playbook, in the latest episode of "The Devil Made Me Blog It"!
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Friday, September 23, 2011
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
McCain: No Room for Debate
When you're in a political campaign, and you have an opponent or two, a reasonable expectation is that you and your opponent(s) will have a debate.
Debates help voters by letting them know where you stand on issues they care about, and how your stances are similar to or different from other candidates. They show you not as an abstract name in a newspaper campaign story, but as a face, a voice, a physical presence. In a nation whose government is based on the exchange of ideas, debates in campaigns for elected office make sense.
Unfortunately, one of our longer-serving elected officials, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, seems to think he is above such practices. McCain has refused to debate J.D. Hayworth, his opponent in this year's Republican primary, the New York Times reports.
The senator and 2008 GOP presidential nominee has been short on explanations, other than telling one voter, "I have a day job," and his campaign staff has also proven reticent. One might guess that McCain's resistance to debate stems from the vigor of his opponent, a man with a radio and TV background who has made the campaign competitive. The senator may just dislike debates, period: He also tried to back out of a presidential debate with his then-colleague in the Senate, Barack Obama, in 2008, claiming to be preoccupied by the economic crisis.
I'm no fan of Hayworth, whose extreme views make him as big of a snake as the diamondbacks that swarm Arizona's deserts, but McCain looks pretty bad himself with his no-debate decision. It suggests he has no confidence in his ability to defend his record in public, and an unseemly fear of his opponent that ill befits McCain, a man who survived years of imprisonment during the Vietnam War.
Sadly, McCain isn't alone in dissing debates these days. My home state of Massachusetts has provided several examples of how to keep debates from the public eye. In this year's special election for the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, the three candidates -- Republican Scott Brown, Democrat Martha Coakley and independent Joseph Kennedy -- held one of their debates not on a major TV network, but on ... a Springfield public-television station. (It was rebroadcast on WGBH.) More recently, the three hopefuls for governor in the Bay State -- Democrat incumbent Deval Patrick, GOP challenger Charlie Baker and independent Tim Cahill -- debated for the first time ... on a radio station at 7 a.m. last Wednesday. When you hold debates as people are still drinking their morning coffee or commuting to work, or on stations most state viewers can’t watch, it’s as good as staging no debates at all.
What, exactly, makes debates so scary for politicians? They fret so much about mistakes they might make, but they don’t remember that debates can help them as well. For all his faults, Ted Kennedy understood this. In 1994, he was the one being challenged for a Senate seat by a younger, more telegenic opponent, Mitt Romney, before his inspired performance in a debate gave Kennedy the momentum he needed to win.
It's time for politicians to start taking debates more seriously. Talk may be cheap, but it's priceless for voters seeking to make a campaign decision. McCain needs to realize this.
Debates help voters by letting them know where you stand on issues they care about, and how your stances are similar to or different from other candidates. They show you not as an abstract name in a newspaper campaign story, but as a face, a voice, a physical presence. In a nation whose government is based on the exchange of ideas, debates in campaigns for elected office make sense.
Unfortunately, one of our longer-serving elected officials, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, seems to think he is above such practices. McCain has refused to debate J.D. Hayworth, his opponent in this year's Republican primary, the New York Times reports.
The senator and 2008 GOP presidential nominee has been short on explanations, other than telling one voter, "I have a day job," and his campaign staff has also proven reticent. One might guess that McCain's resistance to debate stems from the vigor of his opponent, a man with a radio and TV background who has made the campaign competitive. The senator may just dislike debates, period: He also tried to back out of a presidential debate with his then-colleague in the Senate, Barack Obama, in 2008, claiming to be preoccupied by the economic crisis.
I'm no fan of Hayworth, whose extreme views make him as big of a snake as the diamondbacks that swarm Arizona's deserts, but McCain looks pretty bad himself with his no-debate decision. It suggests he has no confidence in his ability to defend his record in public, and an unseemly fear of his opponent that ill befits McCain, a man who survived years of imprisonment during the Vietnam War.
Sadly, McCain isn't alone in dissing debates these days. My home state of Massachusetts has provided several examples of how to keep debates from the public eye. In this year's special election for the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, the three candidates -- Republican Scott Brown, Democrat Martha Coakley and independent Joseph Kennedy -- held one of their debates not on a major TV network, but on ... a Springfield public-television station. (It was rebroadcast on WGBH.) More recently, the three hopefuls for governor in the Bay State -- Democrat incumbent Deval Patrick, GOP challenger Charlie Baker and independent Tim Cahill -- debated for the first time ... on a radio station at 7 a.m. last Wednesday. When you hold debates as people are still drinking their morning coffee or commuting to work, or on stations most state viewers can’t watch, it’s as good as staging no debates at all.
What, exactly, makes debates so scary for politicians? They fret so much about mistakes they might make, but they don’t remember that debates can help them as well. For all his faults, Ted Kennedy understood this. In 1994, he was the one being challenged for a Senate seat by a younger, more telegenic opponent, Mitt Romney, before his inspired performance in a debate gave Kennedy the momentum he needed to win.
It's time for politicians to start taking debates more seriously. Talk may be cheap, but it's priceless for voters seeking to make a campaign decision. McCain needs to realize this.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Coulter: I Think I'm Comin' to Boston...
...and New York and Chicago, too.
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter will debate liberal commentator Bill Maher at the Wang Center in Boston on March 10. The Athens of America is one of three stops for Coulter and Maher, who will also duel -- oratorically, that is -- in the Big Apple and the Second City.
On the surface, it's encouraging that a prominent liberal and conservative are debating like this. But it will only be a true exchange if it's done in a debate-style format instead of a format of one person addressing the audience and their counterpart issuing a rebuttal, as was the case when Coulter debated Air America's Al Franken in Los Angeles in 2006.
Let's hope, also, that neither Coulter nor Maher uses the occasion not as a promising exchange of ideas, but as a way to slur an individual or group. Coulter's latest offense is slandering single mothers in her new book "Guilty." She also derided Mexicans during her stop in LA. Maher, meanwhile, called the 9/11 hijackers "not cowardly" ... on Sept. 17, 2001. And fate joined both pundits almost two years ago: Maher, in the wake of Coulter's use of the F-word while discussing John Edwards, then made ill-considered comments himself, about then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
Still, perhaps, with the presence of a live audience before them and a willing partner in debate, Coulter and Maher can show the country that liberals and conservatives can share a stage cordially. For far too long, the Left and Right have seemed too comfortable excoriating each other. It's good they'll get to listen to each other now.
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter will debate liberal commentator Bill Maher at the Wang Center in Boston on March 10. The Athens of America is one of three stops for Coulter and Maher, who will also duel -- oratorically, that is -- in the Big Apple and the Second City.
On the surface, it's encouraging that a prominent liberal and conservative are debating like this. But it will only be a true exchange if it's done in a debate-style format instead of a format of one person addressing the audience and their counterpart issuing a rebuttal, as was the case when Coulter debated Air America's Al Franken in Los Angeles in 2006.
Let's hope, also, that neither Coulter nor Maher uses the occasion not as a promising exchange of ideas, but as a way to slur an individual or group. Coulter's latest offense is slandering single mothers in her new book "Guilty." She also derided Mexicans during her stop in LA. Maher, meanwhile, called the 9/11 hijackers "not cowardly" ... on Sept. 17, 2001. And fate joined both pundits almost two years ago: Maher, in the wake of Coulter's use of the F-word while discussing John Edwards, then made ill-considered comments himself, about then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
Still, perhaps, with the presence of a live audience before them and a willing partner in debate, Coulter and Maher can show the country that liberals and conservatives can share a stage cordially. For far too long, the Left and Right have seemed too comfortable excoriating each other. It's good they'll get to listen to each other now.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Obama tru$tworthy on economy?
Obama Economy Cartoon
Originally uploaded by rbtenorio
In the presidential debate with Sen. John McCain on Tuesday night, Sen. Barack Obama came across as compassionate in discussing the economic crisis with members of the audience. Does this qualify him to lead our nation? Mephistopheles thinks not in the latest episode of "The Devil Made Me Blog It"!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
McCain impresses on foreign policy
Sen. John McCain closed his presidential debate with Sen. Barack Obama Tuesday night on a strong note, sounding experienced, realistic, and occasionally witty on foreign policy.
"(You) have to temper your decisions with the ability to beneficially affect the situation and realize you're sending America's most precious asset, American blood, into harm's way," McCain said. "I know those situations. I've been in them all my life. And I can tell you right now the security of your young men and women who are serving in the military are my first priority right after our nation's security."
McCain preached pursuit of Osama bin Laden and congratulated himself for supporting the surge in Iraq -- neither a surprising stance. Yet he also showed thoughtfulness. When moderator Tom Brokaw asked whether he thought Russia under Vladimir Putin was an evil empire, McCain replied, "Maybe," then clarified: "Depends on how we respond to Russia and it depends on a lot of things. If I say yes, then that means that we're reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior."
Humor and nuance, both welcome. Obama, by contrast, sounded naive at times, such as when he said, "I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies -- to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences."
Economic issues are dominating the headlines lately. Yet if you think that foreign policy, and not ecomonic, issues will dominate the term of the next president, McCain looked like the better candidate on Tuesday night.
"(You) have to temper your decisions with the ability to beneficially affect the situation and realize you're sending America's most precious asset, American blood, into harm's way," McCain said. "I know those situations. I've been in them all my life. And I can tell you right now the security of your young men and women who are serving in the military are my first priority right after our nation's security."
McCain preached pursuit of Osama bin Laden and congratulated himself for supporting the surge in Iraq -- neither a surprising stance. Yet he also showed thoughtfulness. When moderator Tom Brokaw asked whether he thought Russia under Vladimir Putin was an evil empire, McCain replied, "Maybe," then clarified: "Depends on how we respond to Russia and it depends on a lot of things. If I say yes, then that means that we're reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior."
Humor and nuance, both welcome. Obama, by contrast, sounded naive at times, such as when he said, "I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies -- to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences."
Economic issues are dominating the headlines lately. Yet if you think that foreign policy, and not ecomonic, issues will dominate the term of the next president, McCain looked like the better candidate on Tuesday night.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Be Sensitive, Support Sarah Palin
Palin Cartoon
Originally uploaded by rbtenorio
What's the best way to convince a liberal to support Sarah Palin? Make an appeal to their sensitive side! In the wake of the Palin-Joe Biden vice presidential debate, this is Satan's tactic in the latest episode of "The Devil Made Me Blog It"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
