Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

Login
The 2012 Presidential Debates: When Moderators Aren’t Moderate

The 2012 Presidential Debates: When Moderators Aren’t Moderate

by | Aug 23, 2012

Lost in the sea of coverage following Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, was the news that the moderators for the three Presidential debates, and one VP debate, were also selected.

There is a certain kind of news one receives that falls into the category of “this may or may not be bad—but it can’t be good”.  For Republicans, learning of the moderators that will be at the helm for these four debates certainly earns this distinction.

In order of appearance they are- Jim Lehrer (PBS News Hour), Martha Raddatz (VP Debate-ABC News), Candy Crowley (CNN), and Bob Schieffer (CBS News).

Since the Romney campaign had to sign off on each moderator, it is hard to imagine that they could not have demanded better (even given that the Obama camp also had to sign off on each).  By any measure, Jim Lehrer, Candy Crowley, and Bob Schieffer all lean to the left, and the networks that employ them all trail badly in the ratings to their direct competition.

Even if you were to say that these three were the fairest that both sides could agree to, giving a green light to Martha Raddatz for the VP debate was certainly inexplicable.  The reason for this being, she is a “foreign affairs correspondent” which is not Ryan’s forte, and in fact he was brought into the race for his economic mastery.  One has to wonder how much focus will be put on non-domestic topics just based on her area of expertise.  On the surface this seems a major concession to the Obama campaign, and one that needed not be given.

The reason these moderators are so important is three-fold.  First, with all the polls showing that the election has a likelihood of being razor-close, every small detail that goes into them has a chance to be huge.  Second, like was the case with the Republican Primary debates, these four showdowns will smash records for viewership and the audience will include millions of Independents sizing up the candidates for the first time.  Lastly, and most importantly, the questions asked of the candidates have the ability to dominate the crucial weeks of news cycles leading up to Election Day.

So What Should The Focus Be?

Poll after poll shows that for the American people ground zero in this election is the economy.  A Pew Research Poll taken from June 7-17 asked voters to name the top issue that they will be considering in the voting booth in November.  The top four answers were Jobs (35%), the Budget Deficit (23%), Health Care (19%), and Social Security (11%).

The danger in having biased moderators was on full display for the Republican Primary debate moderated by George Stephanopoulos, when, seemingly out of nowhere, he felt the need to drill down with Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum on the issue of female contraception.  This gave birth (no pun intended) to the Sandra Fluke phase of the campaign and a multi-week sidetrack by the media away from the serious issues of the day.  There is simply no doubt that, should they choose to, a moderator can actively push the focus to issues that are not widely being considered by voters—and into territory that favors one candidate or another.

As will be the case in October, it just so happens that the issues voters themselves say are paramount are the exact issues that President Obama is desperate to avoid talking about.  In theory this would make the debates a huge opportunity for Romney and Ryan to drive home their message—something tells me it won’t quite go down that way.

Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but will these moderators have the gumption to ask President Obama why a myriad of the promises he made while running in 2008 have been unachieved or even un-attempted?  Will they remind the American people that twice the President had budgets voted on by Congress, and he failed to receive one solitary vote for either of them?  Will they ask why he promised to cut the deficit in half but instead oversaw three years of trillion dollar plus deficits?  Or will they inquire why he has not laid a plan on the table for reforming entitlements, after saying himself this was crucial in 2008?

Republican Are Right to Be Nervously Skeptical

All things being equal, and according directly to the polls, the topics discussed during all four of the debates should almost exclusively be jobs, the deficit, the long term health of entitlement programs, and foreign policy.  What I fear instead is painful subjection to multiple questions on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and student loan debt— knowing all the while the fruit is rusting on the vine.

It is true that the level of professionalism that the four moderators will show is yet to be determined, and perhaps at least three of them will be fair (I hold no hope for Bob Schieffer).  But given the track record of behavior the major media outlets have shown to Republicans in recent years, I’d say a mildly-crippling nervousness is more than justified.

After all, barring a phenomenal performance by both Republican candidates, one thing is certain—“it may or may not be bad…but it won’t be good”.

 

 

The post The 2012 Presidential Debates: When Moderators Aren’t Moderate appeared first on The Conservative Reader.


The 2012 Presidential Debates: When Moderators Aren’t Moderate

In the Age of the Selfish Voter

by | Jul 1, 2012

In a Representative Democracy, voting for a particular political candidate or philosophy is the most impactful way a citizenry can change their country.  While the “who” a person votes for is what actively shapes a Republic, digging into the motivation behind that vote is far more telling, and ultimately reveals far more about ourselves and where we are heading.

As government involvement in Americans day-to-day lives has expanded, the possible motivating factors at play driving each citizens vote has also expanded—and the effects of this have been devastating.  Boiled down to the most basic level, there are two motivations that influence a political vote—you can vote in what you believe is in the best interest of the country, or you can vote in your own personal interest.

In past generations, before the American government was so deeply involved in the giving business, the vast majority of our population largely had only the best interest of the country as a whole to consider.  Unfortunately, today nearly half of our citizens have the legitimate option of choosing to vote for their own personal gain at the ballot box.

Not Your Grandfather’s Democratic Party

Though it sounds crass, the modern day Democratic Party has evolved into a selfish group of constituencies that have something to gain in voting for Democrats and against Republicans.  While the most obvious entries on the list involve financial assistance from the economic safety net—unending unemployment benefits, housing subsidies, food stamps, Title 19, etc.—in recent years this list has grown to include several other things.

Hispanic Americans can now vote Democrat to ultimately allow their friends and relatives who are here illegally become citizens.  Gay Americans can now vote Democrat to gain the right to marry and the economic advantages that come with it.  Union members can vote Democrat in order to receive more favorably negotiated salaries and benefits at the bargaining table.  Those Americans who, for whatever reason, did not have health insurance can now vote a straight Democratic ticket in hopes of retaining it, since they have now been given it.

In large part this massive constituency of selfishly driven voters explains what the mind-boggling national debt has become so out of control.  Far more than any other issue, not running annual deficits and paying down the national debt are two things that are in the best interest of the country—and not necessarily in the best interest of each individual American.   The polling data bears this out showing that, even with the national debt north of $16 trillion, only 66% of Democrats cite lowering this number as a major priority.

Contrarians to this line of thinking will make the charge that Republicans vote in their own best interest by voting for politicians who believe in lowering their taxes.  As usual this charge leaves out one unavoidable fact—that the money taken by the government for taxes is earned, and it belonged to the individual in the first place.  Put simply, voting to keep more of your own money and not giving it away to a largely wasteful entitlement state (especially one with a progressive tax code) is not a greed driven motivation—rather it is a logical one.

What It Means

The selfishly motivated voter is the single biggest reason why European style democracies are self-feeding, self-defeating, unworkable, and unsustainable.  Yet in spite of the real-time evidence playing out across the Atlantic, a near majority of Americans refuse to change course.  Increasingly, it is hard not to assume a major reason why American voters are unwilling to do so is that they would be putting themselves out to do so.

The only way to break this cycle is for the Democrat Party to shift away from promising things to an ever-widening group of voters.  The sad truth though is that they have built a political base only able to stand upright through some combination of deficit spending, large tax increases, and social pandering.  They have become so politically dependent on various sub-groups that making decisions for the economic good of the country, even if they wanted to, would quickly result in them paying a huge political price and losing elections.

Whenever Americans choose to overlook our national interest and instead vote in favor of their own, neither is well served.

 

 

The post In the Age of the Selfish Voter appeared first on The Conservative Reader.


    Log in