NB Chat: Florida GOP Debate

Wow! Was that boring. Did

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:57pm.

Wow! Was that boring. Did NBC give the audience Valium or are Floridians just more reserved?

I wouldn't be surprised if Brian Williams informed the audience not to clap, whistle, or stand in approval of a candidate. (that would make him look bad)

• Login to post comments

R- Debate (01/22/12) “The Official Grump-Analysis”

Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 9:53am.

Source: “The Grumpy Center for Advanced Studies (GCAS)”

Official Motto/Poem of the GCAS:
“Truth is beauty,
And beauty truth, and
That is all ye need to know …
Except when you run into a wall of ugly,
Then you’re on your own.”

OVERVIEW: The Monday evening snorefest/debate was held in Charleston, South Carolina and was sponsored by NBC News, the Tampa Bay Times, The National Journal and the Florida Council of 100. The debate took place at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

THE MODERATORS/QUESTIONERS: The evenings Grand Inquisitor was Brian Williams who managed to be both mildly snarky and absolutely irritating, all-the-while professionally posing as unbiased.

During two segments (regarding Florida specific issues) Williams was aided in the questioning by National Journal’s Beth Reinhard and the Tampa Bay Times’ Adam C. Smith.

SPECIFIC OBSERVATION: I suspect most people tuning into the debate were hoping for another fireworks show much like the two prior to the SC primary… If so, they were mightily disappointed – This debate was the dullest of all… it was, in fact, an antidote for insomnia with no new information appearing (except for the fact that the 'sugar beet' industry is larger than the 'cain sugar' industry... a "Presidential-level" issue I have always worried about).

NBC (and Brian Williams) performed what could have been a brilliant flip-flop going in the opposite direction of the usual motus-operandi of the MSM. Instead of overtly trying to be ‘controversial and aggressive’ in their own right, they managed to bring-up just a hint of controversy and allowed the candidates to be as aggressive towards each other as possible… it didn’t work, but it was a notable effort.

The ‘word on the street’ prior to the debate was that Romney would come-out swinging while attempting to get Newt to lose his cool and thereby implode… that didn’t happen quite the way the pundit’s planned (Newt did not lose his temper). There was also the prediction that Newt would go after the MSM, but Williams did not offer Newt any opportunity to attack.

PARTICIPANT ANALYSIS: This time around, we will take the candidate analysis in a different direction, The focus will be on ‘Aggressiveness.’ The candidates will be judged on three factors – Aggressiveness toward:
(a) Obama and the Bureaucracy –
(b) Aggressiveness/Passivity on the issues –
(c) Each other.
1. Newt Gingrich – Presented himself as a calm, rational, and unflappable candidate with a wide range of experience and positive conservative credentials and plans. Newt refused to take the bait from both Romney, Santorum, or the questions from the moderator/panel… He was most effective in his arguments against Obama and the bureaucracy.
RATING: B+

2. Ron Paul – Seemed calmer and more rational than the “Captain Distraction” we have come to know. Ron Paul will always be Ron Paul but this time around (at least) he did seem to have a more appealing sense of humor. When it comes to aggressiveness (under the factors listed above) Ron Paul is aggressive towards only those issues that inhabit his own little world… Of note is that RP (like a true conspiracy-believer) never seems to specifically criticize Obama or the administration but tends to lump both (R) and (D) policies together… In other words: he has a big problem recognizing the problems, but is more focused on his own solutions (whether they apply to the problem or not).
RATING: (using the Ron Paul “Bizzaro scale”) B

3. Willard “Mitt” Romney – Tried to go negative on Newt, but did not succeed (Newt just brushed him off) – Maybe his ‘uninfluenced’ Super-Pac will do better. Mitten’s did not hesitate to be aggressive against Obama and the incompetence of the administration… but it just seemed like a hollow arguments at this point because there didn’t seem to be any passion behind those arguments. As to the issues, Mitt said the right things, but again there was no passion to back-up his beliefs. Overall, it just seems like he is a living-breathing commercial for the Chevy Volt… a product that appeals to people needing transportation – but one that nobody really wants.
RATING: C-

4. Rick Santorum – Turned in the most aggressive performance of all, yet (like Mittens) seemed to lack real passion. He made good arguments against the Obama administrations policies and methodologies and aggressively attacked both Newt and Mitt over the Health Care issue… But his performance seemed more workman-like than leadership-like. His knowledge of the issues is impressive, but in this debate, he was not given the opportunity to express his overall vision on the major issues, but was relegated to simply putting the issues in context.
RATING: C

- Grump :o)

• Login to post comments