"... to indicate the others onstage. 'These are good people, who are tainted by a broken system....' 'Not all of us are tainted!' the North Dakota governor, Doug Burgum, who is polling around one per cent, called out, and then Scott, Ramaswamy, and the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, started speaking all at once. It took close to two minutes for their voices to become fully disentangled. When Ramaswamy tried claiming credit for disinvesting from China, Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s former U.N. Ambassador, jumped in: 'Yeah, right before you ran for President,' perhaps the lone good line of the crosstalk apocalypse. Ramaswamy did not look flustered—his smile was broad, his hair was piled into a pompadour, his voice was declarative—but he also plainly had no idea what he was trying to say. At one point he tried to break through the noise, saying sardonically to his rivals, 'Thank you for speaking while I’m interrupting.'"
ADDED: "Quit talking while I'm interrupting" is a corny old riposte. Lots of T-shirts with that phrase are easily found. Ramaswamy's variation — turning the demand to stop into a "thank you" — is cheerily sarcastic.
Keep in mind that the first rule of American politics is to be entertaining. It’s always been thus. The only thing that changes — around the edges — is the style of Clown School.
Both the debates really were a mess because of the interrupting and resulting unintelligible crosstalk. Maybe there needed to be an aggressive use of the mute button on microphones by the moderators. Maybe the standards were set too low to qualify to be on the debate stage. In one argumentative stretch between Nicki Haley and Tim Scott, the only clearly discernible words were "gas tax" and "curtains". Frankly, that debate should result in curtains for most of the contenders.
The Crack Emcee said... I don't know what happened to Vivek's hair. I saw a clip of him, earlier in life, and it looked totally fly, but now he looks like Butthead
serious questions for the debaters * if you think Trump is good.. Why are you on the stage? why not rally around HIM? * if you DON'T think Trump is good.. Why are you on the stage? why not rally around the only viable option?
OF course, the answers are: * They DON'T think Trump is good, they think he is an outsider * They think the only viable option is Joe Biden, and the whole RNC is a scam
That Republicans are participating in this farcical, fake "debate" demonstrates that they're not serious about winning and that our elections are fake.
This isn't a debate. It's a chance for hand-picked Democrat media operatives who are literally Democrat Party embeds to ask questions designed to ensure that Americans don't burn Washington DC to the ground when Joe Biden is announced the winner of our next fake election.
Are we done yet? Let's find out who's really willing to suck it up and support the Donald in return for his support in 2028.
BTW, additional exposure isn't helping Christie at all.... What a dope. His money clearly set him up solely to be a torpedo. And they're wasting all of their money.
Watched the clip, whatevah. You will never get anything of value from a New Yorker writer, especially the heavily biased anti-right Benjamin Wallace-Wells, about a group of Republicans. Althouse is just wasting her time on something like this, IMO. If it's for fun, enjoy. But it ain't for insight or accuracy.
Well one possibility is that the very format, hostile orientation of the questioners, and rules of this "debate" are DESIGNED to create and amplify confusion and not allow any of the candidates to emerge clearly as a dominant, effective choice. By allowing constant interruptions, no focus or cohesive message can emerge from the chaotic squabbling. It's programmed to destroy candidacies, not develop them.
If any of these candidates really want any chance to get serious attention, they're going to have to develop their own venues, events, and distribution strategies.
Yet another Republican debate where the social-media reaction is that the moderators seem to think their job is to sabotage the proceedings to help the Democratic Party.
There are lots of theories as to why Republicans can't seem to put together a competent panel, but with each failure, the conspiracy version (that it is deliberate and the panel actually is competent for its true purpose) gains traction with each repeat of the farce.
Nobody on that stage matters other than DeSantis. The shame is, he could pick up the full MAGA base support with some patience. It's not his time, and the way he is going about things is going to blow it for him in 2028.
2024 is about 1) correcting the 2020 voter fraud that installed Biden, 2) saying kiss my ass to all the corrupt lawfare being used against Trump, 3) releasing ALL J6 political prisoners, 4) cutting off the billions being sent to Ukraine to cover for US corruption, 5) stopping the purposeful invasion at the southern border, 6) defanging the Deep State.
Trump can't beat the deep state alone. It has to be done with the support of the American people. If the 2024 election isn't fraudulent, there is a slight change. But odds are Gavin Newsome will be installed as President and we are probably screwed.
tim maguire said...There are lots of theories as to why Republicans can't seem to put together a competent panel, but with each failure, the conspiracy version (that it is deliberate and the panel actually is competent for its true purpose) gains traction with each repeat of the farce.
It's like Charlie Brown pretending Lucy is going to pull the football away...this time...
* if you think Trump is good.. Why are you on the stage?
It's not an either-or. You can believe that Trump-like policies are good, while trying to convince the primary electorate that you can package those ideas in a way that appeals to enough people in the center so as to have a better chance to win the election, or that you can manage the government more effectively to turn those ideas into law and policy.
So far, none of them have done a good job of making that case. Everybody says they'll close the border, but obviously Trump wasn't able to build a wall, so why should we think they are going to work Congress more effectively to get the wall built? No one actually says.
On the other hand, other than the border, Trump hasn't particularly articulated what he would do in office anyway (except compromise on abortion), so it's hard to run against him on policy.
Both the debates really were a mess because of the interrupting and resulting unintelligible crosstalk.
Almost every article you see about Republicans, whether it's Congress, the voters or the Presidential candidates, has some variation on the words "chaos" and "desperation" in it. These debates certainly feed that narrative. They aren't helping the individual candidates and they aren't helping the Party. They are only helping the Democrats and Trump, presumably the two entities no one involved wants to help. And for what?
The New Yorker is my go to source for understanding Republican politics, or the politics of anybody who has the potential to politically inconvenience Joe Biden, Republican or Democrat. I know I always get an honest, disinterested, and deeply insightful take, every time.
It was obvious from the first minutes that the RNC, in cahoots with the moderators, were out to make sure that no one could break out of the pack. Of course, that was already known when the winnowing criteria winnowed only a single marginal candidate.
Ronna McDaniel is a fifth column, the Democrats' Fidel Castro, fighting a guerrilla insurgency against her own putative party. 2024 will be her fourth consecutive R blowout.
Some of the candidates are not aimless. Their political consultants, their debate preppers however, are. Clearly everyone was told 'this is your now or never moment. Just go out there and scream to be heard.' All of these consultants think alike and produce a similar type of result.
Which is why the first candidate who tells their consultants to take a flying leap at a rolling donut might have a chance to be heard, or make an impact. At some point, one of these people has to be themselves and stick with their gut. Trump does for the most part. That's why he gets so much traction.
How much of the Vivek hate is a generational thing? Is he just a fast-talking Millennial?
I know that Pence's wisdom-filled tone and deliberate manner make me want to stab an ice pick into my temple. He's so slow that his pomposity is magnified.
I, for one, want my pols to fight verbally. Heck, let 'em get a pool of jello, or better yet, mud, out there midstage and have round robin matchups until just one is standing.
Political "debates" have been ridiculous for decades, with responses to any question absolutely know before anyone stepped up to a mike, and their only purpose has been to celebrate those who break out of character and say something accidentally truthful, or crash to the collective condemnation of the media, like racers at a rainy Nascar race.
Dress them all in matching dinosaur costumes to stop us knowing who is who, and transcribe their responses to questions onto the screen, so we can't ID anyone by voice, and they might have to answer a question or two with something other than pap and pabulum, using policy or ideology or facts rather than pretested catchphrases. Otherwise, I'll just watch a well-scripted WWE event if I need to see scripted BS.
Unless everyone other than Haley or DeSantis don't drop out before Iowa, Trump will be the nominee. A gaggle of geese is no match for a wolf.
Things will have to get much, much, much worse for a Republican candidate to win in 2024 given the level of mail-in-vote fraud the Democrats are clearly willing to do, so I have come to the belief that the best path forward is to go for the big "Fuck You And The Horse You Rode In On" by renominating Trump and voting for him even if he is sitting in Leavenworth doing hard time for jaywalking. To not do so is an endorsement of the Democrats' unethical tactics- if you allow them to win this way, they won't stop in the future. You either go down fighting, or you bend the knee.
There is a perfectly good reason why any of those folks might consider President Emeritus to be the best candidate, even better than themselves.
What happens if he is not the candidate in November? There are a variety of reasons he might not be.
I see these folks all running as backups.
They might also see themselves as running interference for him. Ramaswami might feel that every arrow aimed at him, is one less fired at PEDJT. Ramaswami might think that people will listen to him but tune out the same Trumpian message if coming from Numero Uno.
I have no idea how real any of the above reasons are. But I can certainly see believing in PEDJT as the #1 choice while running myself.
As for me, It is Donald Trump or nobody. I would support a 2nd term for Brandon rather than any of those folks on the stage. Possibly excepting Ramaswami. And possibly excepting DeSantis. They would need to show me more than they have so far.
Why Biden? Same reason I supported Obama over Romney. As Vladimir Ilych Lenin said "Worse is better"
OTOH, Puerto Rico has no presidential electors so it is up to you all in the upper 50 who my president is. All I am doing is yammering. And sending some money.
Keep in mind that the first rule of American politics is to be entertaining. It’s always been thus. The only thing that changes — around the edges — is the style of Clown School.
Here's the WaPo covering the Trump-Biden debate. These are funny clips! And the music is good, too.
But the actual debate was a disaster to watch. All the cross-talking and interruptions made communication impossible in places. I remember the Trump-Biden debates as the worst I've ever seen.
Biden's campaign made the decision to copy Trump's style 100%. That was annoying as shit!
Maybe one of the groups that host these debates -- the League of Women Voters(?!) -- could have a debate where there is a Politeness Pledge or some damn thing, that if you violate it you get thrown off the debate stage.
Althouse does that on her blog. She lets you say just about anything you want to say. But if your shit is too shitty she will boot your ass out.
You would need a judge, and when the judge (or judges) decide that you have violated the rules, you are booted off the stage. (Trump would love that shit, it would remind him of professional wrestling).
I like the humor and the interruptions if they are funny. But if somebody is just annoying as shit, boot his ass. Why not? People who are booted off will have plenty of opportunities to talk about it. I think the networks running the debate should take more control of the optics and make sure the debate itself is entertaining (and informative) television.
Fox could only gin up 8.5 million viewers for this fiasco, so why have "also-ran" debates at all?
It's too early for most of us. Only hard-core politicos give a shit at this stage. This is Bull Durham stuff, double A ball. It ain't the World Series, that's for sure. But my concern was that the last major debates (Trump-Biden) were unwatchable and unhelpful. You can maybe put that down to their personalities. But there are some structural issues, too. Nobody gets booted off a debate stage for misbehaving, there are no authorities running the debates, and nobody trusts the media to run a fair debate.
So those are big issues. And I wouldn't blame the American people for not watching debates if the debates are awful and uninformative and unhelpful.
Here is Ronald Reagan getting into some kinda fight with somebody who wanted to shut him up. Great television! And a great president.
Support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Posts
30 comments:
I don't know what happened to Vivek's hair. I saw a clip of him, earlier in life, and it looked totally fly, but now he looks like Butthead.
Keep in mind that the first rule of American politics is to be entertaining. It’s always been thus. The only thing that changes — around the edges — is the style of Clown School.
Both the debates really were a mess because of the interrupting and resulting unintelligible crosstalk. Maybe there needed to be an aggressive use of the mute button on microphones by the moderators. Maybe the standards were set too low to qualify to be on the debate stage. In one argumentative stretch between Nicki Haley and Tim Scott, the only clearly discernible words were "gas tax" and "curtains". Frankly, that debate should result in curtains for most of the contenders.
The Crack Emcee said...
I don't know what happened to Vivek's hair. I saw a clip of him, earlier in life, and it looked totally fly, but now he looks like Butthead
heh heh...
serious questions for the debaters
* if you think Trump is good.. Why are you on the stage? why not rally around HIM?
* if you DON'T think Trump is good.. Why are you on the stage? why not rally around the only viable option?
OF course, the answers are:
* They DON'T think Trump is good, they think he is an outsider
* They think the only viable option is Joe Biden, and the whole RNC is a scam
That Republicans are participating in this farcical, fake "debate" demonstrates that they're not serious about winning and that our elections are fake.
This isn't a debate. It's a chance for hand-picked Democrat media operatives who are literally Democrat Party embeds to ask questions designed to ensure that Americans don't burn Washington DC to the ground when Joe Biden is announced the winner of our next fake election.
"I got mixed up confusion
Man, it’s a-killin’ me
Well, there’s too many people
And they’re all too hard to please"
Are we done yet? Let's find out who's really willing to suck it up and support the Donald in return for his support in 2028.
BTW, additional exposure isn't helping Christie at all.... What a dope. His money clearly set him up solely to be a torpedo. And they're wasting all of their money.
Watched the clip, whatevah. You will never get anything of value from a New Yorker writer, especially the heavily biased anti-right Benjamin Wallace-Wells, about a group of Republicans. Althouse is just wasting her time on something like this, IMO. If it's for fun, enjoy. But it ain't for insight or accuracy.
Well one possibility is that the very format, hostile orientation of the questioners, and rules of this "debate" are DESIGNED to create and amplify confusion and not allow any of the candidates to emerge clearly as a dominant, effective choice. By allowing constant interruptions, no focus or cohesive message can emerge from the chaotic squabbling. It's programmed to destroy candidacies, not develop them.
If any of these candidates really want any chance to get serious attention, they're going to have to develop their own venues, events, and distribution strategies.
Yet another Republican debate where the social-media reaction is that the moderators seem to think their job is to sabotage the proceedings to help the Democratic Party.
There are lots of theories as to why Republicans can't seem to put together a competent panel, but with each failure, the conspiracy version (that it is deliberate and the panel actually is competent for its true purpose) gains traction with each repeat of the farce.
'Thank you for speaking while I’m interrupting.'
"Wake up and go to sleep."
Nobody on that stage matters other than DeSantis. The shame is, he could pick up the full MAGA base support with some patience. It's not his time, and the way he is going about things is going to blow it for him in 2028.
2024 is about 1) correcting the 2020 voter fraud that installed Biden, 2) saying kiss my ass to all the corrupt lawfare being used against Trump, 3) releasing ALL J6 political prisoners, 4) cutting off the billions being sent to Ukraine to cover for US corruption, 5) stopping the purposeful invasion at the southern border, 6) defanging the Deep State.
Trump can't beat the deep state alone. It has to be done with the support of the American people. If the 2024 election isn't fraudulent, there is a slight change. But odds are Gavin Newsome will be installed as President and we are probably screwed.
tim maguire said...There are lots of theories as to why Republicans can't seem to put together a competent panel, but with each failure, the conspiracy version (that it is deliberate and the panel actually is competent for its true purpose) gains traction with each repeat of the farce.
It's like Charlie Brown pretending Lucy is going to pull the football away...this time...
* if you think Trump is good.. Why are you on the stage?
It's not an either-or. You can believe that Trump-like policies are good, while trying to convince the primary electorate that you can package those ideas in a way that appeals to enough people in the center so as to have a better chance to win the election, or that you can manage the government more effectively to turn those ideas into law and policy.
So far, none of them have done a good job of making that case. Everybody says they'll close the border, but obviously Trump wasn't able to build a wall, so why should we think they are going to work Congress more effectively to get the wall built? No one actually says.
On the other hand, other than the border, Trump hasn't particularly articulated what he would do in office anyway (except compromise on abortion), so it's hard to run against him on policy.
Both the debates really were a mess because of the interrupting and resulting unintelligible crosstalk.
Almost every article you see about Republicans, whether it's Congress, the voters or the Presidential candidates, has some variation on the words "chaos" and "desperation" in it.
These debates certainly feed that narrative. They aren't helping the individual candidates and they aren't helping the Party. They are only helping the Democrats and Trump, presumably the two entities no one involved wants to help. And for what?
The New Yorker is my go to source for understanding Republican politics, or the politics of anybody who has the potential to politically inconvenience Joe Biden, Republican or Democrat. I know I always get an honest, disinterested, and deeply insightful take, every time.
"Ramaswamy's variation — turning the demand to stop into a "thank you" — is cheerily sarcastic."
Right. But progs need to represent it as symbol of "chaos" and it's hard for ordinary GOPers to take.
It was obvious from the first minutes that the RNC, in cahoots with the moderators, were out to make sure that no one could break out of the pack. Of course, that was already known when the winnowing criteria winnowed only a single marginal candidate.
Ronna McDaniel is a fifth column, the Democrats' Fidel Castro, fighting a guerrilla insurgency against her own putative party. 2024 will be her fourth consecutive R blowout.
Some of the candidates are not aimless. Their political consultants, their debate preppers however, are. Clearly everyone was told 'this is your now or never moment. Just go out there and scream to be heard.' All of these consultants think alike and produce a similar type of result.
Which is why the first candidate who tells their consultants to take a flying leap at a rolling donut might have a chance to be heard, or make an impact. At some point, one of these people has to be themselves and stick with their gut. Trump does for the most part. That's why he gets so much traction.
How much of the Vivek hate is a generational thing? Is he just a fast-talking Millennial?
I know that Pence's wisdom-filled tone and deliberate manner make me want to stab an ice pick into my temple. He's so slow that his pomposity is magnified.
I, for one, want my pols to fight verbally. Heck, let 'em get a pool of jello, or better yet, mud, out there midstage and have round robin matchups until just one is standing.
Political "debates" have been ridiculous for decades, with responses to any question absolutely know before anyone stepped up to a mike, and their only purpose has been to celebrate those who break out of character and say something accidentally truthful, or crash to the collective condemnation of the media, like racers at a rainy Nascar race.
Dress them all in matching dinosaur costumes to stop us knowing who is who, and transcribe their responses to questions onto the screen, so we can't ID anyone by voice, and they might have to answer a question or two with something other than pap and pabulum, using policy or ideology or facts rather than pretested catchphrases. Otherwise, I'll just watch a well-scripted WWE event if I need to see scripted BS.
An aimless debate is not indicative of the aimlessness of their candidacies. It is indicative of the selfishness of our media.
Unless everyone other than Haley or DeSantis don't drop out before Iowa, Trump will be the nominee. A gaggle of geese is no match for a wolf.
Things will have to get much, much, much worse for a Republican candidate to win in 2024 given the level of mail-in-vote fraud the Democrats are clearly willing to do, so I have come to the belief that the best path forward is to go for the big "Fuck You And The Horse You Rode In On" by renominating Trump and voting for him even if he is sitting in Leavenworth doing hard time for jaywalking. To not do so is an endorsement of the Democrats' unethical tactics- if you allow them to win this way, they won't stop in the future. You either go down fighting, or you bend the knee.
There is a perfectly good reason why any of those folks might consider President Emeritus to be the best candidate, even better than themselves.
What happens if he is not the candidate in November? There are a variety of reasons he might not be.
I see these folks all running as backups.
They might also see themselves as running interference for him. Ramaswami might feel that every arrow aimed at him, is one less fired at PEDJT. Ramaswami might think that people will listen to him but tune out the same Trumpian message if coming from Numero Uno.
I have no idea how real any of the above reasons are. But I can certainly see believing in PEDJT as the #1 choice while running myself.
As for me, It is Donald Trump or nobody. I would support a 2nd term for Brandon rather than any of those folks on the stage. Possibly excepting Ramaswami. And possibly excepting DeSantis. They would need to show me more than they have so far.
Why Biden? Same reason I supported Obama over Romney. As Vladimir Ilych Lenin said "Worse is better"
OTOH, Puerto Rico has no presidential electors so it is up to you all in the upper 50 who my president is. All I am doing is yammering. And sending some money.
John Henry
--- What happens if he is not the candidate in November? There are a variety of reasons he might not be.
The Ramaswambegley ticket will be ready.
Fox could only gin up 8.5 million viewers for this fiasco, so why have "also-ran" debates at all?
Mind-boggling thoughts from Josh Gray's Dad are more important inside the debate and to the politics at hand.
Keep in mind that the first rule of American politics is to be entertaining. It’s always been thus. The only thing that changes — around the edges — is the style of Clown School.
Here's the WaPo covering the Trump-Biden debate. These are funny clips! And the music is good, too.
But the actual debate was a disaster to watch. All the cross-talking and interruptions made communication impossible in places. I remember the Trump-Biden debates as the worst I've ever seen.
Biden's campaign made the decision to copy Trump's style 100%. That was annoying as shit!
Maybe one of the groups that host these debates -- the League of Women Voters(?!) -- could have a debate where there is a Politeness Pledge or some damn thing, that if you violate it you get thrown off the debate stage.
Althouse does that on her blog. She lets you say just about anything you want to say. But if your shit is too shitty she will boot your ass out.
You would need a judge, and when the judge (or judges) decide that you have violated the rules, you are booted off the stage. (Trump would love that shit, it would remind him of professional wrestling).
I like the humor and the interruptions if they are funny. But if somebody is just annoying as shit, boot his ass. Why not? People who are booted off will have plenty of opportunities to talk about it. I think the networks running the debate should take more control of the optics and make sure the debate itself is entertaining (and informative) television.
Fox could only gin up 8.5 million viewers for this fiasco, so why have "also-ran" debates at all?
It's too early for most of us. Only hard-core politicos give a shit at this stage. This is Bull Durham stuff, double A ball. It ain't the World Series, that's for sure. But my concern was that the last major debates (Trump-Biden) were unwatchable and unhelpful. You can maybe put that down to their personalities. But there are some structural issues, too. Nobody gets booted off a debate stage for misbehaving, there are no authorities running the debates, and nobody trusts the media to run a fair debate.
So those are big issues. And I wouldn't blame the American people for not watching debates if the debates are awful and uninformative and unhelpful.
Here is Ronald Reagan getting into some kinda fight with somebody who wanted to shut him up. Great television! And a great president.
Post a Comment