CNN's debate: guns, flags and Bibles
By HOWARD TROXLER
Published December 2, 2007
Here's an idea for the next YouTube-style debate:
No media screening of the questions.
CNN did a lousy, even offensive, job in Wednesday night's debate in St. Petersburg.
I don't just mean that they let in Democratic ringers. I mean that CNN put on a parody of what it thought ought to be a Republican debate.
Let's pretend that the St. Petersburg debate had been aired on Fox News - and that Fox was screening questions for the Democrats instead.
Now, let's say that Fox News had included the following video questions, out of thousands submitted:
-A stoner sitting amidst a cloud of smoke, wanting to talk about marijuana.
-An obnoxious ACLU lawyer, demanding rights for Islamic terrorists.
-A pair of drag queens, piercings and all, denouncing mainstream culture.
In that case, my Democratic friends would be screaming at Fox News for trying to make the candidates and the party look silly, to paint them by association with extremists.
Well?
You think CNN could have found a gun control question that didn't involve that Rambo guy, brandishing his big piece menacingly?
You think there might have been a question about religious faith that didn't involve that scary-looking guy jamming his Bible at the camera?
Did we even need to spend a question on that guy showing off his Confederate flag?
Sure, there were some good questions, too. But notice that none was about the economy. None was about Putin in Russia or Chavez in Venezuela.
Nobody asked what we should do about our mortgage disaster. There was not a single question about health care, or overpaid U.S. executives, or our energy future, or the safety of our food supply.
I am not, repeat, NOT decrying the YouTube format, or saying questions need to be asked by stuffy panelists.
Just the opposite. If we're going to have a "people's debate," then let's have one. They ought to answer questions at random.
If they get a question from a UFO nut, so what? Answer it and move on. If they get a question from a rabid, ax-grinding partisan, so what? All the better - it gives them a chance to show us what they've got.
***
In any debate, I am most impressed when candidates say things that the audience doesn't want to hear.
Hence, Rudolph Giuliani saying that guns can be regulated, that he wouldn't sign a federal abortion ban, that Islam is "a great religion." John McCain saying America ought to set a higher moral standard on torture. Mike Huckabee saying it's wrong to punish the kids of illegal immigrants.
Duncan Hunter, giving a common-sense answer on why he won't take a no-new-taxes pledge (we might have a national emergency). Fred Thompson, saying that America has to reform its entitlements or go broke. Ron Paul, demanding withdrawal from Iraq. Heck, I even give Tom Tancredo a certain credit for telling employers to quit hiring guest workers and to raise pay for U.S. workers.
Not saying I agree with all or any of those points, just that they represented displays of gumption. If a candidate will only to play to the crowd, well, what does that say?
Hey, maybe I'll get to submit that question for the debate between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Romney....