Why do we even bother calling them debates? They are nothing more than theatrical productions where the media props up whichever candidate they think should win. Romney definitely got his talking points out (and spanked Perry a bit) but that's all he is...talking points. I find it very telling that in spite of polling in third place nationally (most polls), Ron Paul received the second to the least amount of questions. Romneyâ 16 Perryâ 11 Bachmannâ 9 Huntsmanâ 9 Santorumâ 9 Gingritchâ 7 Cainâ 7 Paulâ 6 Johnsonâ 5 This is not a coincidence. The political establishment is terrified of this man and they should be, because he would bring real change to DC.
I think one of the reasons why Paul gets so few questions is quite frankly, we know he stands with everything. I like the guy a lot, but to be honest, his answers are getting old. He honestly doesn't even need to even be there. Asking Ron Paul what he thinks about the FED is like asking a 12 year old girl what they think about Justin Bieber. It was nice to see Gary Johnson in the debate for a change.
Who is this "we" you speak of? Who do you think should be there and what criteria do you use to make those choices? Unless that 12 year old girl spent 30 years as an agent fighting the spread of all things Bieber, I think your analogy is off. However, it is a cute analogy. Also, it was nice to see Johnson debate for a change, yet he received the fewest opportunities to speak. You would think, by your logic, that he would have received the lion's share of the time but of course, that was not the case.
The "we" is anyone who watches these debates who typically is a political junkie like myself. Almost no one watches these things. So anyone who is "that" into politics, knows who Ron Paul is and where he stands on the issues. The criteria should be to make the most of the limited airtime. People want to hear the "most" from those we know the "least" about. For example: if Chris Christie were to enter the race tomorrow and he were to appear in the next debate, I sure as hell wouldn't want to hear moderators keep asking Ron Paul about the FED over and over again. I would want to hear from Christie!!!!!!! That is how debates work. The reason why Gary Johnson did not get that many questions is the SAME reason Ron Paul didn't. I know where Gary Johnson stands on every issue!!!!!! Seriously, this is not that difficult. It's a waste of air time to ask candidates questions that we all know the answer to be. Kind of like CNBC asking Abby Joseph Cohen if she is bullish on the market. Look, most people don't watch these debates because they are boring as shit. You know what makes them even more boring? Asking the same people the same damn questions over and over again.
75% of a presidential election is a beauty contest. I am not saying its the way it should be, but it is the way it is. America was ready to elect a black President in 2008. Would America be ready to elect a fat President in 2012? I doubt it.
So your assumption is that only political junkies watch the debates. I'm not sure I can agree with that without something to back up the assertion. Also, if that were the case then there would be no need for debates because all of us political junkies already know where everyone stands, right? I suppose that's fair. Unfortunately Fox News did not agree with you and instead decided to give the lion's share of talk time to Romney. Johnson has been excluded from several debates and received the least amount of talk time. Anyway you slice it, the format was skewed. Also, some candidates get softball questions designed to make them look good and some don't. The reasons behind that are debatable but I cannot say that it is fair. Actually a real debate would afford every candidate an opportunity to answer every question, and not attempt to prop up one candidate over the other. That's not what happened last night though. I tend to disagree. I think the process which elects the most powerful man on earth is quite fascinating. Unfortunately, it I also completely unfair. Perhaps your opinion is in the majority and perhaps not. Either way, one thing remains clear, this was anything but a fair and balanced debate.
Yeah his weight is really the issue. I think it goes beyond just aesthetics. I think health would be a major issue. Under the stress of that job, he would be a heart attack waiting to happen. Having said that, I think he will lose the weight and it's only a matter of time before he is President.
Do this for me. Call up all your friends and family and asked them how many of them watched the debate. Nobody I know watched it, and i live in Chicago, a pretty politically active town. The ratings for these things are atrocious!!!! Look it up, I'm dead serious. You are definitely in the minority. The debate was fair. A fair debate is not asking every candidate the same questions over and over again. Who would want to watch that. Debates are suppose to be lively and dynamic. I don't want to hear Gary Johnson speak. I like Gary. Love Gary. But I know where he stands on every issue. Now, let's say Gary said something this week in the news that was controversial. Then I would want to hear the moderators ask him to address those comments. I would also want to get comments from the other candidates regarding those remarks. Other then that, I don't care. And the reason why Romney is getting the lion share of the talk time is because he is deemed the front runner or in 2nd place. Come on man, don't be obtuse. In the 2004 democratic primary race, I didn't need to hear from Al Sharpton that much when he is polling at 1%. I wanted to hear from Hilary and Obama! You may not think that is "fair", but these debates can't last 10 hours. Anyone that has access to the internet can Google their favorite candidates and watch all their youtube videos. It's not that hard man.
The only two on the stage last night worth considering (if you must vote for a Republican) were Herman Cain and Ron Paul.