Wednesday, August 05, 2015

The non-debate debate

The Fox News debate field is set.  So what.  I suppose I’ll have to watch, but I’ll be watching like the guy who buys a ticket to the hockey game to see the fights or a NASCAR fan who likes the wrecks.   I really do not expect much.  Ten guys on stage for two hours, what can be accomplished other than one or two of them crashing and burning?  That’s why I’ll tune in.

I do not know why the Republican Party is allowing the MSM to set the rules for their debates.  It’s crazy.  The RNC should hire Donald Trump to market the debates for them and make money off the enterprise.  How about some sort of round robin between candidates conducted in the early primary states?  Why is that a bad idea?  

They could have a real debate where they asked each other the questions instead of BS MSM eggheads injecting themselves into the debate while trying to show everyone tuning in how much smarter they are than the candidates.  With a format like that the debate might last an hour.  Lemmesee, 60 minutes in an hour, divided by two, that’s what, almost 30 minutes for each to speak.  10 guys on stage for two hours, that’s 120 minutes, divided by 10, is what…12 minutes? 

Here’s another thing, the moderator on the Fox debate will take two minute setting up a question on a complex issue like immigration and then the candidate will get one minute to answer the two minute question.  Then, then, then after the debate some talking head will complain that so and so didn’t offer any specifics.  YGBSM.  You get 1, one, one minute to answer.  WTF do you think you’re going to get - Plato?  You’re going to get a non-responsive talking-point driven rehearsed if not memorized response.

Kudos to the guy who says, “That’s a good question for a real debate.  Too bad this isn’t a real debate.  You’ve only given me one minute to answer, so I’ll have to rely on the boilerplate talking-points answer and suffer the slings and arrows of the geniuses in the after show talking about a lack of specifics. ”  

There will be an early question about “the tone” of the campaign.  This is a softball for someone to unload on Trump.  Anyone who takes the bait will fail in a spectacular fashion and all that will be left will be a smoldering grease spot where a presidential candidate once stood.

Trump will use the word, fabulous, terrific or disaster in about every answer.

Cruz and Carson will help themselves.  Cruz because he’s an Ivy League debate champ.  Carson because he’s the real deal and will be the most interesting guy on stage.  But most of all because they – along with Walker - are my guys and this sham debate will not change my opinion.

Fiorina will break out as the star of the undercard.  She’ll demonstrate that she is clearly the smartest strongest candidate on that stage of dwarfs.  She has the advantage of not having to deal with the Donald.

No comments: