Media Irrelevancy – A Self-Inflicted Wound

With one exception, which I will get to later, the questions posed by workaday Americans in the Fox News-Google GOP Presidential debate in Orlando, FL, were much more on-point and of interest to Republican voters watching a Republican debate than the biased (if not outright hostile) and “gotcha” questions the media insist on asking.

The questions included one asking how the candidates would incentivize small business owners to hire new employees in this “troublesome economic environment” and another asking “Out of every dollar I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?." Other people asked about:

† a federal right to work law;

† the tension between federal pre-emption vs. states’ rights;

† which federal government the candidates considered expendable;

† federal education mandates that interfere with how and what teachers teach;

† whether the candidates would mandate across-the-board use of E-Verify and impose penalties on employers who continue to hire illegal workers;

† what U.S. should do to support Israel considering “the existential threats it faces from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and now the Palestinian Authority?”;

† why the U.S. keeps sending gobs of taxpayer money to “countries that hate us”; and

† how repealing ObamaCare will affect people who are uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition.

Without a doubt, one of the most original, thought-provoking – yet entertaining – questions ever asked in a presidential debate was this one from a voter in Richmond, VA: “If you had to choose one of your opponents on the stage tonight to be your running mate in the 2012 election, who would you choose, and why?”

Perhaps because these questions came directly from potential voters, the candidates were more likely to answer them (Romney was the exception; he refused to quantify the income level at which someone can be regarded as “rich” and refused to state whether he considered Obama a “socialist.”).

The media seem to think that Repub voters are ignorant boobs, but this audience was well-informed – much to the surprise of Chris Wallace, when former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain was asked to explain his 9-9-9 plan the crowd already knew the particulars. And the quality of the questions that were posted on You Tube suggest that the voters who planned to tune in to the debate were also well-informed (that that, Jon Stewart!).

One question that was booed – and to be clear, it wasn’t the questioner being booed, as some have claimed but the self-indulgent question itself – was posed by a gay soldier serving in Iraq:

In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier, and I didn't want to lose my job. My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?

Although the question was seemingly directed to all the candidates, moderator Megyn Kelly asked former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) to respond – no doubt since he is considered hostile to gays by the media, gay activists and some Republicans. Santorum pointed out that fraternizing is forbidden in the armed forces (“any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military”) and that ending the don't ask/don't tell policy “inject[s] social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.” Pressed by Kelly about “what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill?,” Santorum said he would reinstate the policy because a person’s sexuality “should not be an issue … keep it to yourself, whether you're a heterosexual or a homosexual.”

The question smacked of Brian Williams asking Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) in a previous debate how he could sleep at night with his state having executed 234 inmates during his tenure, and was both irrelevant to the audience and disrespectful of their time.

13 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Gary Covington on September 26, 2011 at 11:16am: I totally agree. After hearing Rick Santorums answer on about the gay question, it just made me want to vote for him all the more. I wish the other candidates were asked the same question. I for one did not think it was an irrelivent question. I want to know where the candidates stand on this issue and what they are or if they are going to change the Don't ask, Don't tell back to it's former self. It is socialism and if any of the candidates don't feel it should be changed back then I want to know. Because I will not vote for that candidate just on that issue alone. I'm a christain to the end and it makes me sick to see other christains (Hypocrites) think it is okay to be gay. At what point did the bible say it's okay to be gay? I am not saying we should be mean to a gay person or tell them they can't have a job because of there life style. But I do not believe they should serve in the millitary because of there life style. First how many lawsuits do you think we would have in court if we allowed the millitary men to shower with the women? Alot I can guarantee. So now were asking for a heterosexual to be in the same shower with a homosexual. And let us not forget homosexuals like the SAME sex. So where are the lawsuits? And who do you think is going have to pay for the lawsuits when they do come around. And trust me they will come. I know I would be sueing if I were in the millitary and someone made me shower with a homosexual. And lets not forget the aids issue. Who do you think is going to have to pay when a soldier gets aids or spreads it to another soldier, maybe in battle due to an injury or due to a sexual encounter. Either way we the TAXPAYERS are going to have to pay for there immoral lifestyle. I define an immoral life style this way. Any type of activity that is distructive or counter productive to a societies growth or well being. Dictionary.com defines immoral as: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. Either of these definitions pretty much hammers the nail on the head so to speak. Anyway like I said, I for one want to know where the candidates stand on this issue because we will be paying for this one way or another. God bless

Comment by Victoria Knox on September 25, 2011 at 11:10am: Thanks, Skip!

Comment by Skip on September 25, 2011 at 10:57am: Once again you hit it out of the park.

Comment by Victoria Knox on September 25, 2011 at 10:52am: Not surprisingly, the MSM didn't like it when we, the people, asked the questions:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fox-newsgoogle-debate-the-revie...

Comment by Randy on September 25, 2011 at 8:31am: I feel that the questions that were meant for all of the candidates should have been to all of the candidates. Not funneled to one or two candidates. We want to know where all of the candidates stand on the issues. How about having a debate where there is no moderator from the media or from the main networks where they have some agenda.

Comment by Russell Edmund Fowler on September 25, 2011 at 6:49am: Maybe the news media should be vote in. Then the Liberal news people will never have a job.

Comment by Mike Richmond on September 25, 2011 at 6:30am: I despise the Left-leaning media as much as anyone, but I didn't find the topic of any of those questions objectionable. What bothered me was the question about gays in the military came from the alleged "gay soldier" who had to "hide who I was" and was concerned about "circumventing progress" made by gays in the military. Come on! Next let's have the death-row convict ask the question about the candidates' stance on the death penalty! It's a "gotcha" approach to learning the candidates' positions on the issues.

Comment by Sheila Charmak on September 24, 2011 at 10:24pm: In most American's minds,the left wing media is going to be irrelevant just like this President is.

Americans are smart enough to know their own minds and we are now determined to rid ourselves of

this President and perhaps just perhaps the left wing media will finally realize even with their bias and

prejudices and even with the media as a spokesperson for this President,we will still prevail. Sheila

Comment by VernonC on September 24, 2011 at 6:58pm: Clever bit of writing, the author injected a repulsive subject to most of us, homosexuality, and coupled it with a subject that most of us think admirable, the military. He used the word "gay" a once nice word that now substitutes for same gender sexual perversion, if he wanted to be similarly genteel with the soldier, he should have called him a "soldier boy", words that were used by poets and such to infer victimization of youth. "Soldier boy" sure doesn't fit today's professional soldier, they may start as a boy but the military soon abuses him of that notion, the military makes him a man. Carrying it farther, the military is long removed from the days when for most it was a brief experience, the officers were considered professionals and the enlisted were grunts, now the enlisted that choose to make it a career are similarly professionals. But, in what other non-Hollywood profession do disgruntled, sulking, self-serving, out-of-step, individuals demand and get exclusion from long established standards? Is this now regulation in the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, etal? I bet not. Sounds to me like life in prison with their alpha males and their pigeons, the predators don't think of themselves as perverts, their victim is the pervert. Unlike the lives of individuals like Barney Frank it isn't exactly romance, in the close living of men at war there is no time for doubt whether your fellow soldier wants to help you or hump you.

Comment by Shirley Eliakis on September 24, 2011 at 6:02pm: The government has no role in private issues, such as sex!

Their minds are so often on bedroom issues they forget what their real job is!

‹ Previous
1
2
3
Next ›