Chris Adamo
Thankfully past the spectacle of presidential "debates"
By Chris Adamo
In an intellectually honest world, political debates would be entirely about learning the governing philosophy or agenda plans of unknown candidates, and contrasting them against their opponents or the track records of incumbents. Of course few people would seriously contend that the modern "news media" environment possesses any lingering shred of intellectual honesty. Furthermore, such a venue would be so severely stacked against the likes of Barack Obama and his fellow liberals that it would doom their prospects of ever securing public office.
As a result, the nation has once again been subjected to a format far more representative of an "X Factor" style talent competition than a thoughtful consideration of who should lead the free world for the next four years. Even the constant ludicrous assertion of debate "winners" and "losers" suggests a wholly misplaced focus on the event itself, rather than the increased public awareness of the candidates to be gleaned from it.
Those entrusted to conduct the debates in an open and even handed manner not only placed obstacles in the path of Republican candidate Mitt Romney with the intention of undermining his ability to make his case, they allowed Barack Obama repeated opportunities to bob and weave his way out of explaining his own abysmal track record. Particularly in the second "debate," Romney essentially had to contend with two opponents, as faux moderator Candy Crowley (of the notoriously left-leaning CNN) aided and abetted Obama's misrepresentation of his abhorrent mishandling of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
If "We the People" are to make the right choice in shoring up this nation's security, its economy, or any of the other looming dangers facing it, we should be fully informed as to both the good and bad decisions made by national leaders, along with the ramifications of those decisions. This was among the chief concerns of the founders when they enshrined the First Amendment's freedom of the press. Yet Crowley and her kind exhibit an almost fanatical determination to withhold such information from the public, apparently believing that common citizens cannot properly absorb and digest the truth. In Crowley's world, maintaining the status of her favored ruling class is far more important than allowing the peasantry to make an informed choice on Election Day.
Considering the extremely poor job substantively informing the public that resulted from this circus, a genuine reexamination of the entire modern "debate" format is warranted. In their present form, these exchanges offer little in the way of political enlightenment by which voters can rationally base their decisions. Rather, candidates are judged on their ability to navigate the gauntlet, with a focus on avoiding "gaffes" in lieu of being compelled to speak the truth and defend their viewpoints. As evidence of this worsening trend, all of this year's debates were set up in a manner that was shamelessly biased to the left, with openly liberal "moderators" clearly taking sides, running block for Obama and Biden while thwarting Romney and Ryan's attempts to get their points across.
It was the outgrowth of these circumstances that led the bulk of "mainstream" media operatives to declare Obama overwhelming victor of the last two debates, though his near-comatose behavior in the first prevented them from making any pretense that he had been the winner in that instance. Nevertheless, ABC commentator George Stephanopoulos tried, and New York Times columnist Alessandra Stanley has flatly declared Obama/Biden to have won all four. To their dismay, the general public is no longer being fooled by these prepackaged "expert" opinions. Post debate polling and focus group research yielded starkly different results. Since the onset of the debates, Mitt Romney has steadily gained while Barack Obama has completely failed to do so, and is even losing support among his base.
Still, the ideologically blind liberal minions keep trying. In a desperate effort to invoke guilt as a means to convince America to vote for a continuation of the disasters of the past four years, MSNBC host Chris Matthews is asserting racism as the motivating force behind those who oppose the reelection of Barack Obama. In an October 23 post-debate commentary, Matthews sought to indict the opposition by stating "I think they hate Obama." This he followed with the obligatory mention of the "white working class in the South" and the not so casual reference to "racial hatred."
As an ideologically blinded liberal, Matthews cannot conceive of any reason other than racial bigotry to explain why Americans might not want four more years of an imploding economy, foreign policy disasters that are only exceeded in scope by the Obama Administration "cover ups," a curtailed and dwindling domestic energy supply, and all of the other fiascos that have left America floundering. The nation that blindly elected him in 2008 but now seems far less likely to do so has apparently only recently become aware of his ethnicity and judged him unacceptable.
Fortunately, Mitt Romney properly appraised this game and proved himself willing and able to play it, despite being an uphill battle. From his total domination of the stage on October 3, to his determined effort to speak the truth two weeks later when undermined by the Obama/Crowley team, to his commanding discussion of the nation's economy this past Monday, he accepted the terms of the match and capably presented his case. Negative liberal appraisals aside, he connected with the American people and has gained significant campaign momentum as a result.
Now the "debates" are over, and the presidential campaign of 2012 is in its home stretch. All of the political armchair quarterbacking of the past few weeks will give way to the fervent last minute efforts of both candidates to solidify support from within their respective bases. For Barack Obama, that means convincing his supporters that the feeding frenzy at federal money trough will continue unabated, while at the same time hoping to scam the rest of the nation into believing that he will pursue a course of fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, he is under no pressure to appeal to the "Obamaphone" voters on any more sincere basis.
For Mitt Romney, the path is far less convoluted. He need not answer every spurious and fraudulent accusation made against him (or those that will most assuredly hit during the next few weeks). He has already shown that he recognizes the dangers of hostile foreign entities and will not bow down to them. He understands properly working business and economic endeavors. So he merely needs to assure America that he will stay the course that he has proposed, by which the nation will be resurrected from its current financial quagmire. And if he can credibly wave the flag, trumpet the good things about this nation instead of apologizing for it, and assure the people of the heartland that he shares their hopes and dreams, he can rise far above the media circus by which the left has sought to control the outcome of modern elections in America.
© Chris Adamo
October 25, 2012
In an intellectually honest world, political debates would be entirely about learning the governing philosophy or agenda plans of unknown candidates, and contrasting them against their opponents or the track records of incumbents. Of course few people would seriously contend that the modern "news media" environment possesses any lingering shred of intellectual honesty. Furthermore, such a venue would be so severely stacked against the likes of Barack Obama and his fellow liberals that it would doom their prospects of ever securing public office.
As a result, the nation has once again been subjected to a format far more representative of an "X Factor" style talent competition than a thoughtful consideration of who should lead the free world for the next four years. Even the constant ludicrous assertion of debate "winners" and "losers" suggests a wholly misplaced focus on the event itself, rather than the increased public awareness of the candidates to be gleaned from it.
Those entrusted to conduct the debates in an open and even handed manner not only placed obstacles in the path of Republican candidate Mitt Romney with the intention of undermining his ability to make his case, they allowed Barack Obama repeated opportunities to bob and weave his way out of explaining his own abysmal track record. Particularly in the second "debate," Romney essentially had to contend with two opponents, as faux moderator Candy Crowley (of the notoriously left-leaning CNN) aided and abetted Obama's misrepresentation of his abhorrent mishandling of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
If "We the People" are to make the right choice in shoring up this nation's security, its economy, or any of the other looming dangers facing it, we should be fully informed as to both the good and bad decisions made by national leaders, along with the ramifications of those decisions. This was among the chief concerns of the founders when they enshrined the First Amendment's freedom of the press. Yet Crowley and her kind exhibit an almost fanatical determination to withhold such information from the public, apparently believing that common citizens cannot properly absorb and digest the truth. In Crowley's world, maintaining the status of her favored ruling class is far more important than allowing the peasantry to make an informed choice on Election Day.
Considering the extremely poor job substantively informing the public that resulted from this circus, a genuine reexamination of the entire modern "debate" format is warranted. In their present form, these exchanges offer little in the way of political enlightenment by which voters can rationally base their decisions. Rather, candidates are judged on their ability to navigate the gauntlet, with a focus on avoiding "gaffes" in lieu of being compelled to speak the truth and defend their viewpoints. As evidence of this worsening trend, all of this year's debates were set up in a manner that was shamelessly biased to the left, with openly liberal "moderators" clearly taking sides, running block for Obama and Biden while thwarting Romney and Ryan's attempts to get their points across.
It was the outgrowth of these circumstances that led the bulk of "mainstream" media operatives to declare Obama overwhelming victor of the last two debates, though his near-comatose behavior in the first prevented them from making any pretense that he had been the winner in that instance. Nevertheless, ABC commentator George Stephanopoulos tried, and New York Times columnist Alessandra Stanley has flatly declared Obama/Biden to have won all four. To their dismay, the general public is no longer being fooled by these prepackaged "expert" opinions. Post debate polling and focus group research yielded starkly different results. Since the onset of the debates, Mitt Romney has steadily gained while Barack Obama has completely failed to do so, and is even losing support among his base.
Still, the ideologically blind liberal minions keep trying. In a desperate effort to invoke guilt as a means to convince America to vote for a continuation of the disasters of the past four years, MSNBC host Chris Matthews is asserting racism as the motivating force behind those who oppose the reelection of Barack Obama. In an October 23 post-debate commentary, Matthews sought to indict the opposition by stating "I think they hate Obama." This he followed with the obligatory mention of the "white working class in the South" and the not so casual reference to "racial hatred."
As an ideologically blinded liberal, Matthews cannot conceive of any reason other than racial bigotry to explain why Americans might not want four more years of an imploding economy, foreign policy disasters that are only exceeded in scope by the Obama Administration "cover ups," a curtailed and dwindling domestic energy supply, and all of the other fiascos that have left America floundering. The nation that blindly elected him in 2008 but now seems far less likely to do so has apparently only recently become aware of his ethnicity and judged him unacceptable.
Fortunately, Mitt Romney properly appraised this game and proved himself willing and able to play it, despite being an uphill battle. From his total domination of the stage on October 3, to his determined effort to speak the truth two weeks later when undermined by the Obama/Crowley team, to his commanding discussion of the nation's economy this past Monday, he accepted the terms of the match and capably presented his case. Negative liberal appraisals aside, he connected with the American people and has gained significant campaign momentum as a result.
Now the "debates" are over, and the presidential campaign of 2012 is in its home stretch. All of the political armchair quarterbacking of the past few weeks will give way to the fervent last minute efforts of both candidates to solidify support from within their respective bases. For Barack Obama, that means convincing his supporters that the feeding frenzy at federal money trough will continue unabated, while at the same time hoping to scam the rest of the nation into believing that he will pursue a course of fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, he is under no pressure to appeal to the "Obamaphone" voters on any more sincere basis.
For Mitt Romney, the path is far less convoluted. He need not answer every spurious and fraudulent accusation made against him (or those that will most assuredly hit during the next few weeks). He has already shown that he recognizes the dangers of hostile foreign entities and will not bow down to them. He understands properly working business and economic endeavors. So he merely needs to assure America that he will stay the course that he has proposed, by which the nation will be resurrected from its current financial quagmire. And if he can credibly wave the flag, trumpet the good things about this nation instead of apologizing for it, and assure the people of the heartland that he shares their hopes and dreams, he can rise far above the media circus by which the left has sought to control the outcome of modern elections in America.
© Chris Adamo
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
