GOP Debate Strategy Seems Fine

I know that GOP partisans were mad about the questions asked last night.  And I think they were right to be -- the questions looked a lot more like Democratic oppo research gotcha questions than issues Republican voters necessarily cared about in the election.

However, I think it is wrong to criticize Republican party leadership for the debate program.  While it would be nice if some of the questions came from the Right, this is exactly the kind of testing their candidates will get in the general election.  Wouldn't the Republicans like to know if their candidate can't handle the Leftish media headwind or if some gotcha question really turns out to be a solid hit to the vital organs -- before they are stuck with him or her?

This issue is related to one I have thought about for a while -- what I call the only silver lining from the current Progressive domination of college campuses.  It may be an uncomfortable environment for libertarians, but they are going to come out of college (as I did) having endured 4 years of 20 on 1 political arguments.  While progressives will only have experience chatting with other progressives in a warm fuzzy welcoming micro-aggression-free echo chamber.  Which one will be better prepared do defend their ideas in the real world?


  1. xtmar:

    Which one will be better prepared do defend their ideas in the real world?

    In the world of Locke and Demosthenes, this may be important, but in practice I think the sheer weight of numbers means they won't have to face very much conflict, especially if they can manage to control the organs of the popular media. Skill in defense of one's position only matters in a fair fight.

  2. Tom Murin:

    The liberals are in such a bubble/echo chamber they truly have no idea, no concept that there are other points of view. They are incapable of connecting the dots or understanding cause and effect. They just "know" things are a certain way. Global Warming, gun control, minimum wage, etc. The list goes on. The minds rarely, if ever, change despite empirical evidence to the contrary - but they claim to be the "party of science" and we're deniers.

  3. SamWah:

    Looked like the candidates turned the table on the "moderators" and whacked them good and hard. The RNC got lucky. Brass turned into gold, and all that.

  4. stan:

    For the perfect example of clueless occupant of the cocoon, watch Charlie Rose question Rubio this morning on why he said Hillary lied. He got all serious while intoning that calling her a liar was a serious charge. Link over at powerline

  5. ColoComment:

    If you want candidates evaluated by how well they scrum in a "cage fight" (to quote Cruz), then let's have that as one "debate" format. This was advertised as a debate on economic issues, and I wanted to hear each propound and argue and defend his economic proposals.
    EVERY effing one of these "debates" is now a "gotcha" forum, and we learn nothing of the intellectual capacities of the candidates to explain and defend the principles according to which he/she would lead this government, be it in the arena of foreign policy, the economy, the welfare state, the military, combating ISIS, or whatever.
    Total waste of time.

  6. Not Sure:

    "defend the principles according to which he/she would lead this government"

    Even if one were able to hear what these claimed princilpes are, there is absolutely nothing to hold the candidate, once elected, to continued support of them. Total waste of time? You bet.

  7. ColoComment:

    Of course. And even if spoken sincerely, there is a limit to what might be accomplished in any given political climate.
    But, we could compare the spoken words to the evidence of past actions, we (or a competent moderator) could probe general statements and dig for particulars that might reveal how well or poorly the candidate has refined his thoughts about claimed principles. We would be able to evaluate their seriousness, the strength of their belief, their fluency with argument or their turning aside barbs with wit & grace.
    THAT might give us just a tiny bit of substance with which to weigh which person we deem worthy of occupying the Oval Office.
    Instead we get a clown show.

  8. herdgadfly:

    Coyote is giving the Republican establishment far more intelligence than its membership is entitled. The only motive for running the debates through hostile media outlets is to weaken conservative and independent candidates toward making Bush and Kasich the frontrunners. When Bush launched on Rubio at the behest of the moderators last night and Kasich had good words for CNBC after the debate, what else would I believe.

  9. David Keener:

    Still think Reince Priebus should be fired.

  10. joe:

    My question is whether Charlie Rose has the intellectual / mental capacity to recognize the truth.

  11. kidmugsy:

    "Which one will be better prepared do defend their ideas in the real world?"

    What does it matter? They don't plan to out-argue you, they plan to crush you by main force.

  12. Not Sure:

    When all you have are clowns...

  13. obloodyhell:

    }}} Which one will be better prepared do defend their ideas in the real world?

    Actually defend? It's obvious.

    Claim "Consensus, the matter is settled!!"? Duh.

    Unfortunately, with the 20-1 world the latter can and will prevail until natural forces destroy the whole FAIL system.

  14. obloodyhell:

    Exactly. Or shouting you down. Or labeling you "RACIST!", "SEXIST!" and "HOMOPHOBE!" and instantly winning via ad hominem.