Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Your Own Private Ryan
[Michael Smith]
| Main | Oh, Here Are Two Possible Reasons Herman Cain Might Have Had A Good Night
May 06, 2011

Frank Luntz' Focus Group: Cain Won

And, for these folks at least, it was a decisive win.

Although I thought Cain did well -- no mistakes, sounded plausible, sounded measured and serious -- I did not see the knockout blow these folks seemed to.

I think Republican primary voters have a tendency to go ga-ga for black candidates. In 2000 and 2004, Alan Keyes had a small but vocal and passionate vanguard of supporters, despite being flaky and odd.

Cain has not much at all in common with Keyes -- Cain could plausibly win an election and plausibly serve as president. Keyes could plausibly serve as the guy who freaks me out at post office. But there is this Cuckoo for Cocoa Pols thing going on to.

My boy, Pawlenty, did about the same, except his first answer (to the debate's first question, which is just about what half of the debate's viewers even saw) wasn't sharp or strong. I believe it was about crediting Obama for the bin Ladin kill, and while there was nothing wrong with it, there was also nothing especially right with it. Santorum, answering the same question moments later, had a stronger answer.

Later in the debate, Pawlenty became a little animated and forceful and shed his image as milquetoast. A little.

But the facts are the facts -- the viewing public seemed impressed by Cain, not Pawlenty. And Pawlenty was really banking on a breakout performance here. Instead, Cain broke out.

Santorum actually did pretty well, and I say that begrudgingly, because I don't see him as a genuine, plausible candidate. But based on his answers: He did well.

Ron Paul continued with his RISing and falLING manner of SPEAKing SOUNDing like a donKEY obsessed with GOLD. I have to say I find his method of debate completely unproductive. Paul is offering a series of non-mainstream ideas. Rather than break these down and make a good case for why someone inclined to oppose them should reconsider, he just sort of claims it's all common sense and speaks in rehearsed applause lines, which his supporters dutifully clap for, but which aren't persuading anyone not already persuaded.

Some of Ron Paul's libertarian ideas could, possibly, gain traction. But only if they're argued rather than just asserted. If his presence here is to make a case for a libertarian, limited government, well, make that case! Just rattling off his conclusions isn't making that case. He really needs to ask what his mission is here, and if his method of achieving that mission is plausible.

Gary Johnson really failed entirely, as he came off as Ron Paul as played by Jm. J. Bullock. His answers tended to lack persuasiveness and he brought his own odd mannerisms to the table.

The moderators were terrible because they weren't moderators. Chris Wallace tried to play gotcha with Pawlenty twice, once over his prior support of cap and trade, and once over Minnesota's coming deficit, and on both occasions he seemed overly Inquisitorial, and in both cases Pawlenty pretty effectively rebutted the question. (Well, in the case of cap and trade, he just blunted it, by confessing it was simply a bad idea that he was now embarrassed to have had. Chris Wallace's premise that Pawlenty wasn't being straight about how much he'd supported it was flatly wrong, and I don't know where Wallace was getting that premise from.)

What's Juan Williams doing on the panel? Oh yeah, to ask questions about evolution and intelligent design, something most Republicans would rather not be asked about. Given that this is a Republican primary and all candidates will have the same punt answer on the question, and few voters will make any sort of decision based on similar punt answers, why was it asked? It does not clarify things for Republican voters.

It's just asked because 1, this is a liberal obsession, and 2, it can be used against the candidates later in a general election.

So ask it later.

Why do we have liberals on the panel at all? I don't have to tell you that liberals will not be permitting a single conservative moderator, even one as respected as Brit Hume, to ask questions of any of their candidates -- or to ask questions of either candidate during the nominee-vs.-nominee debates in the general election season.

Lastly, this form of "debate" is not a debate. It's weak. It's just a joint Q&A appearance where the journalists, as usual, pitch gotcha questions designed to make them look clever or "tough."

A debate would consist of three broad sections -- Foreign Policy and War, Economy and Taxes and Jobs, and Social/Moral Issues. Then just let each candidate answer about broad issue categories, and allow them to ask each other questions. The moderator (and we only need one) should just be there to insure the keep on point, do not filibuster, and do not unduly monopolize camera time. (Although there is a component here that's important -- a candidate's ability to command the floor and make his voice heard. But let's not have it turn into a shouting match, eh?)

This whole idea continues to be perpetuated -- that it's journalists, rather than candidates, who are clever enough to poke holes in the candidates' positions and make them squirm.

What, none of the candidates is smart enough to do that? You don't think these guys are on the ball enough to study an opponent's position and pop a loaded question about it?

On this point, the moderators can do an additional service by having their researchers do instant internet searches and article reading to call true or false on candidates' charges; candidates, fearing a "misleading" ding, will tend to make their assertions more defensible and closer to a neutral reading of the record.

But for the love of God, please let us dispense with this journalistic vanity that they're the only ones expert enough in policy and politics to intelligently question these candidates.

These are professional politicians, most at the very top of the game. (And also, Ron Paul.) I think they know something about policy and politics and clever questions, too. Maybe not so much as a brilliant journalist, but of course that's a standard few of us mortals can actually reach. But we can at least try to achieve such exalted heights.

digg this
posted by Ace at 10:52 AM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1): "Just looked up Ronald Rowe Jr. Former cop who migh ..."

MAGA_Ken: "Where was Cheadle on that Saturday? What if she wa ..."

It's me donna : "351 Insider Paper @TheInsiderPaper 3h BREAKING: S ..."

Axeman: "Insider Paper @TheInsiderPaper 3h BREAKING: Sec. ..."

[/i][/b]andycanuck (wse2C)[/s][/u]: "Bullshit alert... Insider Paper @TheInsiderPape ..."

Intercepted DU Transmissions brought by the Intrepid AoS Liaison: "[B]Allow President Biden His Dignity [/b]By lettin ..."

I denounce myself: "344 I know we’re doing a thing, but I wouldn ..."

Soothsayer is Axiosoothsayer now: " If true, the biden-harris SS/DHS just declared t ..."

Thomas Bender: "@336 >>Seriously?? That was probably one of the ..."

Axeman: ""Who is that guy? Is he one of ours or yours? No o ..."

[/i][/b]andycanuck (wse2C)[/s][/u]: "Insider Paper @TheInsiderPaper 3h BREAKING: Sec. ..."

Kindltot: "[i]I don't know but there was a whole bunch of lef ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64