Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Why do we put up with debate moderation like this?

Short answer - because we have to.

I'm hearing a lot of griping on our side regarding the job Crowley did last night in trying to protect Obama from embarrassing questions.  The complaint always falls back to "Why do we put up with this?  Why don't we insist on fair moderators?"

We really don't have a choice.  The deck is stacked against us and we have to trust our candidates to win debates against two people, the Democrat candidate and the moderator.  The only leverage we have is to not participate.  That is a guaranteed loss for us.

Keep in mind the upside of these debates for us.  Our candidates get about 40 minutes to articulate our positions, without someone being able to spin and lie about them.  This is why Romney is now leading.  In the first debate he negated about $100 million in advertizing that Obama has spent over the previous 3 months.  These are our only opportunities to talk directly to the voters, without media and Democrat spin.

No it isn't fair.  But our only other option is worse.

1 comment:

  1. I agree, but I find the townhall style debate to be especially biased, and my guess is that will the end of that format for a while. There's just too much opportunity for mischief, and I think we saw with the crowd cheering for Obama that it's VERY easy to stack the deck.

    The next time these negotiations come around, insist on a traditional debate format. If the commission balks, the Republican can simply challenge the Democrat to a "traditional" debate, and the Democrat will of course have to accept.