Willisms
Navigation

Buy WILLisms

XML Feed


Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Donate





Links

Blogroll Me!







Search



Archives

July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004




Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006




Credits

Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori




WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):











The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site

giftshopbanner.gif











This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif



Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif

























Willisms

« The Eleventh Mainstream Melee -- Bureaucracies & Change Do Not Mix. | WILLisms.com | Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 105 »

Why Ditching The Debates Is Dumb

From 'Don't Shut Up Paul' by John Dickerson in Slate Magazine:

The GOP is not supposed to be the party for sniveling ninnies: The recent Fox debate demonstrated that candidates look better when they face tough questions from either the moderators or other candidates. Whatever the merits of Giuliani's response to Paul, it was good political theater. Rudy looked strong and commanding. This helps him, and it helps the party. Even Nixon understood that it's the tough questions, not the softballs, that improve a candidate's standing with voters. So why would Republicans want to yank off stage the guy who is such a great foil? (A corollary: This is one of the reasons Democrats are silly to turn down debates hosted by Fox. They're missing a chance to look confident and full of conviction in front of tough questioning.)"

There is a lot of wisdom packed into that paragraph.

Democrats avoiding debates on Fox?

Weak. Very weak.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 19 May 2007 06:58 PM

Comments

KMc,

You bring up several interesting issues here, compounded by the fact that this could be the longest Presidential campaign since Joe Kennedy declared one of his infant sons would be President.

I think it is a good exercise to have all possible debates and candidates stand up and tell us their ideas. At this point, it is a good idea to have all the candidates, even the minor ones, on the inside of the tent pissing out; having a few on the outside pissing in serves no useful purpose.

I do agree with you that the most telling statements come about as a matter of internal discourse, not seeking relativism to a individual that will not be on the ballot. The democrats at this point seem to find unitinimity in the fact that GWB is responsible for everything from bad pet food to generating the Islamnofacist movement.

The democrats are cowards, they could never do the same. Fox News is their biggest enemy, not their stupidity and failure to recognize who the actual enemy is.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at May 20, 2007 11:49 AM

And look at how they deal with their 'enemy' Fox News.

They run away and hide!

Posted by: Ken McCracken at May 20, 2007 01:20 PM

Faux News isn't a legitimate news organization.

Period.

As for the debates, there will be so many debates on legitimate news forums, I wouldn't worry about the Dems not being seen or heard.

Given the GOP debates on Faux--it's embarrassing. The GOP candidates look like game show contestants because the Faux panels ask idiotic questions. So, you get a lot of pandering and silly responses.

Posted by: Jadegold at May 20, 2007 01:30 PM

ARRRGGG,...ARRRGGG...Puke...Puke...

It was only a matter of time.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at May 20, 2007 01:48 PM

Hee!

I guess that is the Dems lamest excuse yet - they don't have to appear on Fox, because Fox isn't 'real' news! See, just by conveniently changing the definition of what a 'real' news organization is, the Dems can avoid the hassle of, you know, actual tough questions.

Fox isn't real because it is biased and fake. Er, kinda like CBS and Dan Rather if you think about it.

Yet we don't see Republicans running away from CBS like frightened children, do we.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at May 20, 2007 01:49 PM

Oh yeah,

Next debate, narrated by Dan Rather.

How to influence and change past history, based on a security clearance.

Sandy Berger will judge responses and appoint a winner based upon their ability to lie and steal.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at May 20, 2007 01:56 PM

You have Dan Rather.

Let's look at Faux: Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? John Gibson? The list goes on and on and on.

Who can forget Brit Hume's first thoughts on 9/11?

The fact is NBC, CBS and ABC are held to much higher standards because Faux has none.

Posted by: Jadegold at May 20, 2007 05:02 PM

Higher standards?

Like . . . hiring a complete fluffy lightweight like Couric at CBS?

Those kinds of 'higher standards?'

Typical liberal confusion going on here: *newsflash* Hannity and O'Reilly are not journalists. They are no more detached observers than is Michael Moore.

Why do liberals continually make that mistake?

Posted by: Ken McCracken at May 20, 2007 06:44 PM

I guess what I think about at times.

Where are your personal beliefs, what do you really believe in?

Do you believe that Fox News could distort my philosophy and lead me to personal destruction? Or do I have enough values, education, and personal integrity to decide whether I should listen or dismiss because I don't have mental or psychological stamina to suffer fools and endure ideas that differ from mine.

I watch all news and opinion shows, never to find a differing opinion threatening to my personal beliefs. Just find them mis-guided and highly objectionable to the standards I believe in at times.

Too bad, some people are so weakened in intellect and purpose, by hearing a differing opinion, that relief is found not in forwarding an idea to oppose, but put forth an effort to silence the opposition.

I hope this made sense, I am not as educated as many here, but as my brother once told me, an education only allows you to spell correctly if you ever have to write a letter.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at May 22, 2007 03:02 PM