Primaries: Fear and Loathing of
Democratic Debate
by Diane V. McLoughlin, January 18th, 2008
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that is a true
fiscal and constitutional conservative. It was interesting
watching Ron Paul win the Fox news television debate
(viewers' poll) even as moderators so offensively tried to
cast him as a loser. His spirited answers elicited rousing
applause from the television audience.
It is also telling that New York Time's blogger Ron Klain
(Republicans in Democrats' Clothing; Jan. 17, '08)
chose not to point out that Ron Paul is the obvious
exception when complaining that republicanism is not so
conservative anymore.
Anyway, who really wants to see another softball
candidate's debate? What I would like to see is a
debate between economists and foreign affairs
specialists from right and left, on candidates' policies.
No, I take that back. Yes, to debate between policy
specialists. But in addition, I want to see a real debate
between the two party's candidates, rather than between
candidates within each party. Gloves off.
As we will no doubt be subjected to more of these
pointless televised love-fests substituting for real debate,
I don't want to see any more exclusions. G.E.'s MSNBC
invited, then at the last minute uninvited,
Rep. Dennis Kucinich to their televised Nevada debate
(Jan. 15th, '08.) A corporate-based decision to exclude
a candidate that is critical of corporate policy? A
television network under public license controlling what
ideas reach the ears of the American voting public?
Shameful. (Although MSNBC is not alone. Kucinich was
excluded from the New Hampshire debate, as well.)
Democracy Now interviewed Kucinich to allow him the
opportunity to answer some of the questions he was
prevented from answering at the Nevada debate.
('Breaking the Sound Barrier: Democracy Now Re-Hosts
NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC
Wins Appeal to Exclude Him'; Jan. 16th, '08.)
So what seems to be the problem with these two
candidates, coming as they do from opposite ends of
the political spectrum? Both appear to demand
intelligent foreign policy, based on the Golden Rule that
would strengthen, rather than weaken, American security
and prosperity.
Which begs the obvious question: Why would anybody
want to shut that out of American debate?
Home