Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Good for Fred
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Didn't see the debate (middle of the afternoon during a work week ... yeah, makes sense). But I did hear about this and I'm with Fred:



Yup, just a little more too it than raising one's hand. I think the obvious reason Fred said he wasn't raising his hand is because he wouldn't have raised his hand anyway. However, I agree with his point ... hand raising has no place in a presidential debate. People are there to hear the candidates on issues, not watch them wave their hands around.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Sorta puts the Dims in a spot if Schoolmarm Washburn does ask for a show of hands tomorrow. Do they look wimpy for giving her one or get accused of imitiating Fred?
 
Written By: Bill Faith
URL: http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/
Moderators love this stuff because it gives their journalist buddies opportunities to play "gotcha" with the candidates. On that question, a "yes" makes you sound like a Gore disciple and a "no" makes you sound like a curmudgeon.

Glad to see someone standing up to those twits. Even gladder it was Fred.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
That was nice.

He’d answer it if given a minute, but she wouldn’t give him a minute.

Who was it offered to answer in 30 seconds?

Did any of them raise their hands?
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
I appreciate the show of hands format is silly and the moderator is not likable.

But I don’t see a problem with yes or no answers with some questions. The question wasn’t exactly like "Do you cheat on your wife anymore?".

Hasn’t anyone ever wanted a straight yes or no answer from a politician?

Yes, such answers can be taken out of context. So I see how allowing them to expand on their answers might prevent that. But that’s also a dual edge sword. It also allows them to nuance their answer into something they can abandon or disown later. Or even duck it completely. Unless you want your candidate to be able to dodge the question so he is more electable?

Here’s a Edwards interview. There is a ’shotgun’ round at 4:40. It tells a lot about Edwards, imho.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

Wouldn’t you love to see the other Democratic candidates and even the Republicans answer those same questions?

I’d say the real problem isn’t with questions with yes or no answers. If anything, it would be the unequal application between politicians. Because yes or no answers will cost votes, but they should.

If they were applied rigorously to all candidates, everyone would see something they didn’t like. But that’s the reality. We are picking the least of the offered evils. But I’d like to know what those evils are.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
When she said that Iraq and immigration wouldn’t come up, I’m sure people went to the tv guide to find the Republican debate. I’m glad that the moderator is finally just as vulnerable as the candidates. I remember Rudy asked Wolf Blizer, "If there’s good news from Iraq, will you report it?" Wolf didn’t give any answer at all.


 
Written By: Cincinnatus
URL: http://
"But I don’t see a problem with yes or no answers with some questions"
This wasn’t one of them.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
But I don’t see a problem with yes or no answers with some questions. The question wasn’t exactly like "Do you cheat on your wife anymore?".
I disagree. To me, that is exactly what the question is like. See, I believe that the science is not settled in either direction. Climatology is a science in its infancy, and its not really even a hard science in the sense that a hard science is one where you can perform repeatable experiments to test your hypotheses. So, while I would be be completely unwilling to answer her question yes, I would be just as unwilling, for the exact same reasons, to answer it no.
If they were applied rigorously to all candidates, everyone would see something they didn’t like. But that’s the reality. We are picking the least of the offered evils. But I’d like to know what those evils are.
IMO, you are less likely to find that out with a yes/no question that if you let the politician ramble a little bit. A yes/no answer on a complex question is nothing but an inkblot that allows you to see what you want to see.

What I’m saying is that your reasoning cuts in both directions. Imagine if the question in a Democrat debate was "Do you support the troops in Irag?" If that question were not yes/no, you’d get to hear all the qualifiers: all the "buts," "ifs," and "whens." However, if that question were yes/no, then the candidates would all give an unqualified and resounding "yes." You seemingly forced them to show some conviction and maybe got a soundbite that the Reps could use against them later, but you really got no useful information on their actual position.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
These events should not be called debates. Interviews, perhaps, but not debates.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
’Showcases’ is probably a better word.

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider