August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Best US debate that I have ever seen because it is similar to the Canadian style debate. Previous US debates amounted to simultaneous press conferences. In Canada, we let the leaders go at each other directly and the moderator steps out of the way. I always thought that Dukakis should have turned to Bush Snr in 1988 and said, "Let's argue directly." The downside in the US is that NBC stops the debate to broadcast publicity. Edited January 24, 2012 by August1991 Quote
capricorn Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 The downside in the US is that NBC stops the debate to broadcast publicity. I like the occasional break to digest what has been said and more importantly to go for a pee. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) The exchange between Gingrich and Romney on lobbyism will enter US political folklore. (I think Romney was wrong/too polite to lay the fatal punch. And to be president, you have to have be cold-blooded.) Canadian political history has several such exchanges. Here's one that's even better (curiously, on a similar topic - graft): http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/prime_ministers/clips/13534/ Edited January 24, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 I think Newt just proposed offering a prize to the first man to get to Mars, instead of a space program. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) When NBC brought in the two other moderators, they wrecked teh "debate". It became once again a simultaneous press conference. ----- IMV, the key point in the debate was the direct, one-on-one exchange between Romney and Gingrich when Romney accused Gingrich of being an influence peddler. To borrow from Mulroney's line, Romney should have gone for the kill then and said something like, "But Newt, you took the money. You could have refused it but you took the $1.6 million." Romney "lost" the debate because he had Gingrich in view but he hesitated. He blinked. Edited January 24, 2012 by August1991 Quote
capricorn Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 There was a point where it was expected that Newt would have something to say and he appeared tongue tied. Dead silence. I still can't make sense of it and will have to listen to a repeat. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 There was a point where it was expected that Newt would have something to say and he appeared tongue tied. Dead silence. I still can't make sense of it and will have to listen to a repeat.I noticed that too.An amazing exchange. It's sad that US political debates are not like Canadian debates. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 I noticed that too. An amazing exchange. It's sad that US political debates are not like Canadian debates. No...the Americans need more than "sweater" punchlines and gang banging the incumbent: Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
capricorn Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 It's sad that US political debates are not like Canadian debates. The systems are not comparable. Our Canadian system is less of a blood sport and I rather like potential leaders going at each others throats to get to the truth underneath all the rhetoric. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 The systems are not comparable. Our Canadian system is less of a blood sport and I rather like potential leaders going at each others throats to get to the truth underneath all the rhetoric.Huh? Our federal debates are blood sports without pity.The US debates are sadly polite affairs. Why? I reckon that Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame explains why. In the US, debate moderators want to be famous. They abuse their chance 15 minutes. In addition, it's a risky proposition for a candidate to go mano-a-mano. Romney did it in Tampa. Gingrich did it in South Carolina (with the moderator!). But in Canada, our politicians do it all the time. We call it Question Period. Quote
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) No...the Americans need more than "sweater" punchlines and gang banging the incumbent: Give it a break, BC. You know enough about Canadian politics to know about our Parliamentary debates, and our election debates. The Romney/Gingrich exchange about lobbyist/graft/influence peddling will be a shocking eye-opener to Americans that we Canadians see on a daily basis. In Canada, our politicians (even the PM) face one another on a daily basis, for all to see. ---- When was the last time that these four guys, or Obama, had to face any questions? Harper has to go Parliament. Edited January 24, 2012 by August1991 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Give it a break, BC. You know enough about Canadian politics to know about our Parliamentary debates, and our election debates. Not much of an election debate there....PM Harper just let them punch themselves out, while looking "presidential". The Romney/Gingrich exchange about lobbyist/graft/influence peddling will be a shocking eye-opener to Americans that we Canadians see on a daily basis. Debates are contrived and overrated in my view. Glad I have cable and Netflix. Americans can watch the UK's question period on CSPAN (late night filler) and not all that exciting. Edited January 24, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Not much of an election debate there....PM Harper just let them punch themselves out, while looking "presidential".Sorry, you're wrong.Parliament matters. Debates are contrived and overrated in my view. Glad I have cable and Netflix. Americans can watch the UK's question period on CSPAN (late night filler). And what about the famous Douglas/Lincoln debates?Or the Nixon/Kennedy debates? Or how about Reagan saying, "They're you go again" or asking: "Are you better off now than four years ago?" ----- Parliament matters because debate matters. You Americans have lost the art of debate. Maybe this 2012 Republican primary season will remind you Americans how important debate is to democracy. Edited January 24, 2012 by August1991 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Sorry, you're wrong. Parliament matters. Parliament matters to you...not me. And what about the famous Douglas/Lincoln debates? Or the Nixon/Kennedy debates? More famous with each passing day I'm sure....meh. Or how about Reagan saying, "They're you go again" or asking: "Are you better off now than four years ago?" Duh! Everybody knew that before he even asked the question. Parliament matters because debate matters. If I really cared enough, I would pull the audience share numbers to prove you wrong. But I don't. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Americans can watch the UK's question period on CSPAN (late night filler) and not all that exciting.QP is not exciting unless something serious is in the news, then it matters.Question Period is like Mass or Confession. It's routine until the routine, because of crisis, suddenly becomes reassuring - because you do it all the time. Edited January 24, 2012 by August1991 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Unless something serious is in the news, then it matters. Maybe, but not usually. The poorly choreographed antics and jeers gets old real fast. Question Period is like Mass or Confession. It's routine until the routine, because of crisis, suddenly becomes reassuring - because you do it all the time. A Mass is hopelessly boring, until somebody drops a wafer on the ground. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 Parliament matters to you...not me.I may be wrong but I think the Republican Party possibly shifted many independant voters to their camp because of that free exchange, for a few brief moments, between Romney and Gingrich in Tampa.For a few moments, it was a remarkable debate. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 I may be wrong but I think the Republican Party possibly shifted many independant voters to their camp because of that free exchange, for a few brief moments, between Romney and Gingrich in Tampa. For a few moments, it was a remarkable debate. I'll take your word for it....the Newt As Fighting Mad Washington Outsider Against All Odds is already old and was always ludicrous for anybody old enough to remember his dramatic fall from grace. Newt Gingrich is living his own fantasy for history....and book sales. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) I'll take your word for it....the Newt As Fighting Mad Washington Outsider Against All Odds is already old and was always ludicrous for anybody old enough to remember his dramatic fall from grace.Newt Gingrich is living his own fantasy for history....and book sales. I reckon that Romney, unlike Gingrich, lacks the killer instinct. IMV, Romney should have gone in for the kill. If Romney lacked the instinct to kill, he could have put the horse out of its misery.One edited quote of the exchange: "Here's why it's a problem," Romney said. "If you're getting paid by health companies ... that can benefit from a piece of legislation, and you then meet with Republican congressmen and encourage them to support that legislation, you can call it whatever you like. I call it influence peddling." If Romney had been a Canadian politician, he would have at least put Gingrich down. Huh? Trudeau did it to Lévesque, Mulroney did it to Turner, Chrétien did it to Parizeau. In Canada, make no mistake, politics is a blood sport. Pauline Marois, Stockwell Day and so on. Edited January 24, 2012 by August1991 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 I reckon that Romney, unlike Gingrich, lacks the killer instinct. IMV, Romney should have gone in for the kill. Remember, Romney is the aloof rich guy who thought he already had the nomination in the bag. If he loses, he has to go back to being a super rich guy laughing at the 99%. Frankly, I don't think Romney has as big an ego as Gingrich. If Romney had been a Canadian politician, he would have put Gingrich down. Trudeau did it to Lévesque, Mulroney did it to Turner, Chrétien did it to Parizeau. In Canada, politics is a blood sport. Petty putdowns are risky in American debates....Benson made it work against Quayle, but it usually backfires. Gore just looked at his watch, but would have all the time in the world to watch Bush as president. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Remember, Romney is the aloof rich guy who thought he already had the nomination in the bag. If he loses, he has to go back to being a super rich guy laughing at the 99%. Frankly, I don't think Romney has as big an ego as Gingrich.Romney is an aloof rich guy? Romney wants to be President. If he appears to be aloof, then that's a "pose". No one aloof becomes President.Petty putdowns are risky in American debates....Benson made it work against Quayle, but it usually backfires. Gore just looked at his watch, but would have all the time in the world to watch Bush as president."Petty putdowns are risky in American debates"? WTF?BC, you say that because you Americans no longer understand debate. Gingrich rightly took on the CNN moderator in the Charleston debate, and his SC victory was based on it. As I say, Dukakis should have turned to Bush Snr in 1988 and said, "Let's discuss this together." ----- Whoever wins the Republican nomination, the nominee should have the courage to debate directly Obama - as Romney and Gingrich debated for a few brief moments in Tampa, and as Canadian politicians debate everyday across Canada when their parliaments are in session. The next Republican candidate should know, thinking of the Tea Party, that nothing beats Question Period. Edited January 24, 2012 by August1991 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Aloof rich guy? He wants to be President. If he appears to be aloof, then that's a "pose". No, it is not apparent to you, but we cannot see Romney's "soul". "Petty putdowns are risky in American debates"? WTF? They are...think it would be a great idea to call FDR a "cripple" ? BC, you say that because you Americans no longer understand debate. Gingrich rightly took on the CNN moderator, and his SC victory was based on it. One state does not a nominee make. You watch our debates, but we don't watch yours. As I say, Dukakis should have turned to Bush Snr in 1988 and said, "Let's discuss this together." Unnecessary, as Dukakis fatally wounded himself on the raped spouse question from the late Bernard Shaw. Whoever wins the Republican nomination, the person should have the courage to debate directly Obama - as Romney and Gingrich debated for a few brief moments in Tampa, and as Canadian politicians debate everyday across Canada when their parliaments are in session. Then why not 100 debates....or 1000 debates? Obama already polls better than these two and he hasn't even begun to fight. Americans don't need to elect the best debater, they need to elect a president. Canadians don't have to do that. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 Then why not 100 debates....or 1000 debates?Why not? Surely democracy is worth at least that.Anyway, I have yet to see/find the clip online of the key exchange in the debate. It's now known in news reports as Romney accusing Gingrich of being an "influence peddler". As I say, Romney had Gingrich cornered and he should have gone in for the kill. Second, I think that this is the future of American politics. Parliament matters. Quote
August1991 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) I'd like to see a clip of the exchange - to see it again. Here's another quote of Romney to Gingrich about his $1.6 million in consulting fees: "You could have spoken out in a way to say these guys are wrong, this needs to end," he told Gingrich. "But instead, you were being paid by them. You were making over $1 million at the same time people in Florida were being hurt by millions of dollars." CNNThat's very close to a killer line. Edited January 24, 2012 by August1991 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 I'd like to see a clip of the exchange - to see it again. Here's another quote of Romney to Gingrich about his $1.6 million in consulting fees:CNN That's very close to a killer line. If you have to dig that hard to find it, how "killer" can it be? Most Americans are not fooled by the "Washington outsider" cloaking devices used by any politician. Even Ross Perot was on the government contract dole. Parliament should matter...to you. Americans...not so much. You will probably watch President Obama's State of the Union speech tonight, but I don't watch throne speeches. There are still 9 months to go and lots of campaign money to be raised and spent. That's just how we roll... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.