Posted by D. Cupples | The CNN/YouTube debate sparked ire among Republican bloggers, some of whom have called for the firing of CNN executives, because the bloggers didn't like CNN's choice of questions or the fact that some obvious Democrats were allowed to ask questions. According to the Caucus Blog, "Some bloggers slammed CNN for seeming to reduce Republicans to guns, gays, the Bible...."
While it's nice to see Republican bloggers recognizing that guns, gays and the Bible are not substantive political issues, haven't Republican politicians spent years bellowing about guns, gays and the bible? Prominent Republican blogger Ed Morrisey wrote this about the debate:
"The GOP encouraged ballot initiatives opposing same-sex marriage in 2004 and 2006 to help push evangelicals to the polls. Republicans make opposition to the 'gay agenda' a big fundraising point on a regular basis."
Yes, and Republican politicians have been similarly opportunistic with religion and guns -- practically claiming to have exclusive ties to Jesus and the Second Amendment.
Those politicians should have expected questions about the very issues they've repeatedly used when seeking donations and votes. Maybe the CNN people who chose among the 5,000+ questions thought that GOP candidates would feel more at home discussing topics they've publicly shouted about until blue faced.
Of course, the debate wasn't solely about non-substantive issues. At the beginning, for example, Rudi Giuliani and Mitt Romney did verbal karate on each other over immigration (see transcript). Romney said that Giuliani had made New York a "sanctuary city." Giuliani pointed out that illegal aliens had been hired to do work on Romney's house and yard. The brawl didn't reach a conclusion, because each candidate's time ran out.
Even if CNN had chosen only questions about substantive issues (like the economy, health care and wars), we can't get truly substantive answers during any candidate debate. All candidates are prepared, their answers are largely scripted (to generate good sound bytes), and -- most importantly -- the substantive issues are too complex to be substantively addressed in 30-60 seconds. Period.
Update: Today's Washington Post reported that CNN apologized for choosing debate questions submitted by people who support Democratic candidates.
Understanding the nature of candidate debates, I'm never disappointed. If you're looking for 22 karat gold, don't go to Wal-Mart.
Memeorandum has other bloggers' reactions: CNN, PrairiePundit, TownHall Blog , michellemalkin.com , Power Line, Captain's Quarters, New York Times, Balloon Juice, The Politico, Wizbang, Think Progress, NewsBusters.org, AMERICAblog, TownHall Blog, TechRepublican.com, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Bluey Blog, Beltway Blogroll and Redstate
Comments