I used to believe these debates were a total waste of time. But more and more it's becoming apparant that they are being used by the media to steer people towards the candidates the media prefers. I thought that fact was quite obvious during the last Democratic Debate when it took close to 12 minutes before someone other than Hillary or Barack to get an opportunity to speak. Then afterwards it was still time dominated by Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. In fact Biden and Dodd were making jokes about it.
This time around, it's been documented. Below is amount of time that each candidate spoke in the debate.
Actual Time Spoken:
Rudy Giuliani: 16 minutes, 40 seconds
Mitt Romney: 14 minutes, 18 seconds
John McCain: 11 minutes, 28 seconds
Fred Thompson: 10 minutes, 23 seconds
Mike Huckabee: 9 minutes, 45 seconds
Ron Paul: 7 minutes, 34 seconds
Duncan Hunter: 4 minutes, 40 seconds
Tom Tancredo: 4 minutes
Opportunities to Speak (Questions/Rebuttals):
Rudy Giuliani - 20
Mitt Romney - 20
Mike Huckabee - 13
John McCain - 12
Fred Thompson - 11
Ron Paul - 10
Tom Tancredo - 8
Duncan Hunter - 7
As you can see, it's pretty obvious why the frontrunners are in that position and why it's hard for the second tier candidates to make a breakthrough. They don't always get an opportunity to state their positions on the big issues and often get asked offbeat questions instead. For example, Ron Paul didn't get addressed directly until about 35 minutes into the debate and then his question was about "Conspiracy theories and fanatical supporters." Come on. That's wrong. The organizers of the debate should let all the candidates have a chance to answer all of the questions. Last night I would have loved to hear everyone's view on repairing our image in the muslim world.
Since it doesn't sound like this will ever happen, it's up to us. If we don't make a specific effort to get to know the other candidates on our own, they will get ignored. In that spirit, I would ask that each one of you refuse to be a sheep. Don't just blindly follow who the media puts in front of you. Don't just follow a candidate because their face is on TV all the time, or that you got to hear one person speak and agreed with them. There may be an alternative out there that supports the issues important to you more than your current favorite but you just don't know about it. Research all of your options and follow what's in your heart. Don't let anyone tell you who you should vote for. Especially the media.
And while you are researching, why don't you start with the link I have up for Joe Biden. (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I noticed that with the Dems debate and the reason is that if they let Mike Gravel actually speak, all of the Dems would vote for him. Of course, then the Republican candidate would then win by a landslide not seen since the Nixon-McGovern election.
http://liberalsmash.blogspot.com/2007/11/vote-me-up-president-part-ii.html
Two Dogs - You're offbase each time you keep equating being a Democrat with being Liberal.
I don't know anyone with a real job who would ever consider voting for Gravel.
Joe, we have a two party system and no one can buck that. The other third party candidates are too far afield to matter. And while the Republicans are most definitely NOT conservative, the Democrats are much more liberal with blowing my money than the Republicans. To me that makes Dems far,far liberal.
Ron Paul is more of an idiot than gravel, the Democrat candidate and the rock stuff.
Universal health care, geez.
I don't mean to sound argumentative, Joe. But, to even let some of these folks in the debates dumbfounds me. Paul and Gravel should team up as independents and run as the phsyco squad or something like that.
Tancredo killed himself by being honest on the illegal alien issue. Ron Paul can't win becaue he is mostly a traditional liberal with libertarian views, like ending the "War on Drugs." Duncan Hunter, no one has heard of, who would be my choice of all of the above listed candidates. McCain CANNOT win the Republican nomination and if he thinks that Dems will swing to him, he's as dumb as he sounds. To me that leaves four Republicans and of those, I ain't liking none of 'em.
But, the Dems are much worse to me because I kinda want to keep what little money that I have.
I agree that Ron Paul might do better as an Independent, and I agree with you about his Libertarian views, however from what I have seen I have found him to be quite conservative actually.
But I still disagree with your idea that Dems and Liberals are to be lumped together. Yes, for the most part Democrats are much more liberal than Republicans. But at the same time, I think Guiliani is actually more liberal than I am, and I consider myself a Democrat.
As for Universal Health Care, it scares me too, but not for the reason you might think. Granted such a project comes with a large price tag, but it's still 1/10th what we spend in Iraq. Look no further than that if you are upset about wasteful spending.
My problem is with it's implementation. #1 - I don't want to see it applied to Illegals. But most of all, I don't want to see any kind of red-tape review process attached. If you're sick, you should be allowed go to the doctor no questions asked. If you hurt your back, go to the chiropractor. If you get hurt, go to the hospital.
If part of the plan includes a review board for each and every case, it's doomed to fail and will become yet another example of wasteful big government. Cut out the review part and save all that time and money. People generally don't care for doctors and don't go unless they are sick. And who knows, maybe if it wasn't such a hassle, people might just go for well visits and checkups and catch that big (costly) issue before it
becomes a problem.
In your scenario, who is going to actually see patients? Do you think that doctors will not flock to another profession once there are governmental controls and salary caps, like say, the manufacturing businesses did en masse to another country after minimum wages kept being raised? Do you actually believe that doctors go into medicine because of their love for helping their fellow man?
And if you think that illegals are not going to get everything free when Hillary is President, you got another thing coming. That is her fan base, criminals, socialists, and anarchists. Oh, don't forget people who hate our military.
Yes, Rudy is far left, why do you think that he gets so much positive press? No conservative wants him at all. Do you not wonder why McCain and Giuliani get so much airtime and ALL of the positive Republican press? Could it possibly be that the mainstream press are mainly journalism grads that want pure communism and they want to get a Republican candidate that is closer to their political thinking? Do you think that it is fair for everyone to make our last two Presidential elections look like they were close?
Sorry, I'm rambling.
Regarding your "who's going to pay them" comment, the rates for virtually every procedure out there has already been pre-determined by what the current insurance companies are willing to pay. The doctors will still be getting paid, and at the going rate.
And no, I don't think doctors will be flocking to another profession. My dad was a surgeon. He did it because he wanted to help people, I believe that most doctors feel the same way. (And if I got a doctor that only saw me as a paycheck, I'd be looking for another doctor anyway.)
As for your assessment of Hillary, that is part of the reason I don't support her right now. And depending on who the GOP nominee is will determine whether I can vote for her in the General Election.
Finally, I flat out reject your notion that journalism grads all want communism. That's ridiculous. Are you saying that there are no conservative journalists? Just take a look at what we have today. The Washington Times is a conservative alternative to the Washington Post. Fox News is a highly successful right wing alternative to the left leaning CNN. And MSNBC is as close to center as you're gonna get. (If you have a problem with MSNBC then you are quite far to one side or the other. Come back to the middle!)
First about the media. The Wash Times completely wipes out the Gannett structure (USA Today and all the larger minor markets), AP, NY Times, Wapo, LA Times, Commercial Appeal, The Des Moines Register, Chicago Tribune, Times-Picayune, et al? One paper, that you can name. I am sure that there are thousands of local papers, like The Laurel Leader Call (circulation seventeen) that don't slant things to the left that have a combined readership of one of those named above, that's because all they have in them is the local garage sale schedule. But for someone to even bring up the Wash Times and try to bolster an argument with that, needs to rethink their reasoning. It doesn't add up and the vast majority of articles in the Wash Times is AP stuff. I don't consider the AP to be conservative, but that's just me.
And FOX-News is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. It is the most conservative of the TV news outlets which means that it could be Marxist and still look conservative. By way of comparison to liberals, it looks like Athens or Rome, which were true Democracies, which the USA is not. I know that you want me to say Nazi Germany, but remember fascism is a liberal idea, where the government runs all. Kinda like government control of all industry, which is what you are advocating for the healthcare industry, a fascist deal. Sorry, none for me, thanks.
You do seem like you are the kind of guy that cares about other people. A damn nice guy. We have different opinions on how to help people. Mine is to leave everyone to their own devices and stay the Hell out of their lives. I do not want universal healthcare, because we see the VA and how they handle things. They lose people in the hospital for weeks at a time. It has happened many times here in Jackson, my ma worked there for fifteen years and told me many stories about it. If you think that any other healthcare run by the most ignorant of our country, those that have to work government jobs because they cannot survive in private sector, will be any different than the one that they already run, well you are not looking at their past and present performance. It will simply be history repeating itself and it will cost at least twenty times more than the highest estimates, just like every single other program that government runs. It would startle me if you could come up with one program that is successful other than the military. Please don't say social security, because I am sure that we can both agree that it is an abject failure.
And there will be as many layers of administrators as there are floor tiles. "Oh, I am the director in charge of medicinal waste on floor six. Please contact my administrative assistant's administrative assistant if you need to talk to my Assistant Director's Administrative Assistant. Oh no, Jim has my job on floor five. They have a different procedure."
"Damn man, I just want someone to empty the trash can in my room."
Joe, I didn't make a blanket statement about journalists, but when over 90% vote Democrat, don't you think that they tend to lean liberal? Don't answer it's rhetorical.
Sorry if I am completely clogging up the comments, but I missed the fee based stuff on the doctors. I do understand that there are people that enter medicine because of their compassion and caring about other people. I am going to go out on a limb and say that they are the very small minority bacause I have been to a doctor before.
And who pays for elective surgery with universal healthcare and who determines what IS elective surgery? Let me tell you. The guys and gals who write the laws regarding healthcare. If that doesn't keep you up at night, nothing will.
OK - Maybe I wasn't clear, but the Washington Times is there to offset the Washington Post IN DC. Go to Chicago and the Sun Times is the counter balance to the Tribune. Virtually every major city has this kind of balance. The Washington Times isn't the only conservative paper out there.
I will also debate you all day if you claim that FOX-News isn't conservative. You may still be more to the right, but that doesn't mean FOX-News isn't extremely right wing in it's own right.
As for Nazi Germany, you've lost me. You're way out there at the moment. You're talking in extremes and there is no need for that. Everything seems to be black and white with you, with no room in the middle for gray area.
Next, how do you figure that Fascism is a liberal idea? Mussolini is probably one of the most famous fascists of the past century and he defined it as a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, and democracy.
Furthermore, you are putting words in my mouth regarding wanting government control over everything. I never said that, or anything close to that. While I said I would support Universal Health care, you failed to note that my stipulation was that it was not overly regulated. While not easy, I believe that it is possible. I don't doubt the stories at the VA hospitals. But those stories would be the first to be fixed with an unregulated UHCS. People would be free to go where they wanted. Finally, regarding elective surgery - it would be the doctors that get to decide what is necessary.
Oh, and can you show me a reputable source that can prove that 90% of the journalists vote Democrat? Voting is private for a reason. Nobody can know that. Remember, 86.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot. I think someone was just messing with you.
Democrats always refers to Republicans as Nazis, that was what that comment was about. Heard or seen any Bushitler references? I wish that folks would quit thinking that he is conservative simply because he reads the Bible and doesn't want to kill unborn children. SIngle issue folks drive me nuts.
Maybe, in the 1920's collectivism and government control was conservative, but that is not the case now. That is liberalism and that is why you hear folks saying that they are classic liberals instead of conservative. The terms have been effectively changed completely and when I say fascism is liberal, it is by today's terminology and they practiced almost all the tenets of the current Democrat platform including institutionalized racism.
And fascism is exactly what current liberalism is. Government controls of everything and government is the highest authority. Completely against capitalism and for removal of all religion, sound familiar? Go to the DNC and they advocate the exact same things that Mussolini did.
And the media stats are in your e-mail. The results were polling of media jawing heads. They told off on themselves. I was off by a little, they have gone down from 94% in the sixties to the 80%+ lines of today. Sorry.
Democrats don't ALWAYS refer to Republicans like that. In fact they don't do it at all. I'm not just a Dem, I'm also Jewish. The term Nazi isn't thrown around lightly. I'm still wondering where you get all this stuff.
Next, you are still completely wrong if you think Dems want goverment control over everything. I'm beginning to wonder if that is what you keep telling yourself so you can justify your disdain for them.
I'm standing here, as a Dem, right in front of you, telling you that is not the case. You can spin it anyway you want, or twist any example, but it doesn't make it true. Neither does your comparison between Fascism and Liberalism.
Finally, thanks for e-mailing the media stats. Your numbers were off by a little more than are letting on. 52% of the media voted Dem in the last election. Considering the final tally was 51/48 - that's pretty darn close. Other numbers from that article: Only 13% percent of the media said they were very liberal. More than 50% are both moderate and independant.
Thanks for the spin though! :)
You did forget to add that 21% refused to answer and only 19% said they voted for Bush over Kerry. I think that you should assume that the ones that refused to answer voted for Kerry bringing the total to 73%. The lowest over the last thirty years, but we can all agree that Kerry is/was a terrible candidate. When over the past thirty years the average hovers around 80%, why should it change all of the sudden? I would like to think that jouranlists are starting to realize that viewership and readership has plummeted since the onslaught of media that is closer to the center and normal, America loving people realized that they didn't have to keep their mouth shut anymore.
We have been kept in the dark long enough by our "trusted" media.
And by jouranlists, I mean journalists, but I do like my word better.
Post a Comment