Non-answers...

[copdsux]

This kind of answer is what angers me. Coming from R's, or D's. Just answer the question.

Romney Trips On Contraception Question: ‘It’s Working Just Fine, Just Leave It Alone’ | Mediaite

 

[RLENT]

I was going to post that as part as a larger posting - the clip actually shows the degree of stupidity on the part of some in the audience (and probably is indicative of the general populace as well)

The most relevant thing out of the exchange is that Mitt couldn't answer the question (a simple one) in a straightforward manner - he was searching for the "correct" (PC) answer - either because he lacks a full conceptual knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, or because while he understands it (doubtful), he's willing to pander.

Some in the audience are stupid because they boo'ed the moderator for persisting in getting Mitt to answer the question and not letting him equivocate .... and for failing to grasp the true import and significance of what they were seeing (that he couldn't ... or wouldn't)

We have become a nation of idiots ...

 

[greg334]

We have become a nation of idiots ...

We have been that way for a long long time.

 

[cableguymn]

We have been that way for a long long time.

It's just got worse lately because we are now in the business of protecting them from them selfs and medical advancements have brought some back that would have died.

Darwin needs more award winners.

Mitt dodged around the question because he can't take a stand. He has no core values and is trying to be something for everyone.

(you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything)

The CORRECT answer is the federal government has NO business saying contraception is legal or not. However, the states DO if they are so inclined to do so.

 

[Turtle]

Whether or not contraception should be used is purely a religious issue, and has no business being dictated by government at any level. The correct answer is government (local, state or federal) shouldn't be in people's bedrooms. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Everything about it screams liberty, the right to be left alone and mind you own business.

Of course, that answer is in direct opposition to those in government, especially the religious right, who want nothing more than to be all up in everybody's business.

 

[dieseldiva]

He was stammering because he was shocked that this question would come up in a debate, think about it. Of course the moderator only used Mitt as the step to Santorum, the real target for the "gotcha" question.

Even dumb little old me was sitting here going "what? where are you going with this"?

Economy, jobs, Iran, etc. and we want to talk about contraceptives?? What is this 1969?

 

[dieseldiva]

This kind of answer is what angers me. Coming from R's, or D's. Just answer the question.

Romney Trips On Contraception Question: ‘It’s Working Just Fine, Just Leave It Alone’ | Mediaite

If this one got ya, you must really fume when Obama gives his 10 minute answers to questions and says nothing!!

 

[witness23]

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I rest my case.

 

[jaminjim]

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I rest my case.

Dang witness does that mean you will no longer post on the Soapbox? Let me be the first of I'm sure many to wish you a fond fair well.

 

[RLENT]

He was stammering because he was shocked that this question would come up in a debate,

Well, judging by his response, it was a prolonged state of shock ..... just dumbfounded ....... speechless ......

think about it.

Thanks, I have ....

Of course the moderator only used Mitt as the step to Santorum, the real target for the "gotcha" question.

Sorry - but if you are using "gotcha" in the sense of "gotcha journalism" then that is an incorrect sense of the term.

This was a live telecast, and the candidates were given the opportunity to respond straight to the viewing public, where their responses would have been complete (as time allows) and unedited.

Just because it makes some uncomfortable having the subject matter and a candidates views on it raised and explored, doesn't mean that it's "gotcha" ....

Even dumb little old me was sitting here going "what? where are you going with this"?

Economy, jobs, Iran, etc. and we want to talk about contraceptives?? What is this 1969?

When at least of one of the candidates on the stage is so authoritarian and anti-freedom, anti-liberty, that he believe he knows better than Constitution and the wise ones in black .... yeah, you betcha - we sure do wanna talk about it.

...... pick that scab until it starts bleeding .....

 

[jaminjim]

When at least of one of the candidates on the stage is so authoritarian and anti-freedom, anti-liberty, that he believe he knows better than Constitution and the wise ones in black .... yeah, you betcha - we sure do wanna talk about it.

Then I'm guessing they should have asked the person who believes that. It's not even a legit topic (IMO) I'm unaware of any state trying to ban contraceptives. So why spend five minutes yapping about a non issue?

Pick that scab until it starts bleeding .....

No thanks, but thanks for the offer.

How many questions were asked about the national debt? Obamacare? Why the economy is in the dumper? I'm just thinking that there was a lot more important things that could have been discussed, rather than spend five minutes asking a hypothetical question about using a condom.
We need to quit allowing liberals to frame the debate. Our focus should be on the economy and individual freedoms.

 

[greg334]

If this one got ya, you must really fume when Obama gives his 10 minute answers to questions and says nothing!!

Sorry diva this isn't about obama but another liberal candidate.

 

[copdsux]

Please note that I included both R's & D's. Politicians just can't answer a question. Period.

 

[RLENT]

Then I'm guessing they should have asked the person who believes that. It's not even a legit topic (IMO) I'm unaware of any state trying to ban contraceptives. So why spend five minutes yapping about a non issue?

IMO, you miss the point - the above is focused too far in on the details and fails to see the broader question: one's view of the Constitution and the practical application of that view.

The details (contraception, abortion, whatever) only serve as the means to delve into the larger issue.

In Santorum's case particularly, it's an area that needs a lot of delving - because of his outlook on liberty and personal freedom generally ...

In terms of Romney - or anyone up there for that matter - it (ie. one's understanding of the Constitution) is a totally legit topic. It deserves a very through treatment - not some glib:

"Yeah, I believe in the Constitution .... that's the ticket" .....

but a:

"Well, ok .... how does that work exactly, in terms of practical application in the real world ?"

No thanks, but thanks for the offer.

Raincheck ?

How many questions were asked about the national debt? Obamacare? Why the economy is in the dumper? I'm just thinking that there was a lot more important things that could have been discussed,

Generally speaking, I'm no fan of much of the media - ain't gonna defend it.

The whole format of the debates is less designed to inform the public than it is to provide more of the mindless "entertainment" that the MSM typically provides.

rather than spend five minutes asking a hypothetical question about using a condom.

Lose the details, get the bigger picture.

We need to quit allowing liberals to frame the debate.

Yeah, yeah ..... I know: it's all about the liberals ....

Look, I get what you are saying .... but I'm not so sure that having the "conservatives" frame the debate would be any better ... in fact, it might be worse (depending on who we're talking about)

Afterall, they are likely to be just as biased - if not more so - in favor of their own personal choices ....

What is needed are "honest brokers" .... good luck finding any of those (for the most part they ain't the media superstars, some exceptions) .... I think Mike Huckabee might be one ...

In terms of serving to really educate the voting public about the candidates, what's really needed is a roundtable type of format where longer answers can be given ... like Huckabee did (I saw one Frank Luntz did as well) .... rather than this American Gladiator dog and pony show ....

Our focus should be on the economy and individual freedoms.

I think the question asked got to the question of individual freedoms .... through how a candidate sees and understands the Constitution .....

The Constitution/BOR is the most fundamental law that we have .... and is basis for who and what we are.

Anyone up on that stage should know and understand it stone cold - and be conversant enough with the practical application of it that they are capable of offering up that understanding and their opinion on any matter related to it, without any hesitation whatsoever .....

Anything else is simply unacceptable ..... or should be .....

 

[dieseldiva]

Sorry diva this isn't about obama but another liberal candidate.

No need to apologize. I know what it's about. The OP said both R's and D's....I was merely giving him an example of a person who not only doesn't answer the question, he gives a 10 to 15 minute essay, hoping that the audience doesn't notice the non-answer and will find him as brilliant as he believes himself to be.

 

[RLENT]

The following, in a nutshell, tells one all one needs to know:

The little Greek asks: "But you accept the Supreme Court's decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution ?"

Romney responds: "I don't believe they decided that correctly ....."

Santorum later chimes in that he more or less agrees with Romney.

Both are anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-individual - in short: pro-state authoritarians .....

Romney makes a complete dog's breakfast of the matter, making himself look like an incompetent boob, by straying off the question (the matter addressed in Griswold v. Connecticut) and equivocating .... and goes into Roe v. Wade ...

Santorum, after doing his own "deer-in-the-headlights" impression ("Wha ? ..... what's the question ?), follows him there ...

Neither understands the Constitution nor the framers original intent (or understanding, just doesn't like it) .... lightweights .....

The audience reaction, in response to the Greek's pressuring Romney to fess up, tells one of the general level of stupidity present in the audience (and probably the general population)

Dr. Paul, knowing and understanding the document, and the intent, aces it.

 

[dieseldiva]

The following, in a nutshell, tells one all one needs to know:

The little Greek asks: "But you accept the Supreme Court's decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution ?"

Romney responds: "I don't believe they decided that correctly ....."

Santorum later chimes in that he more or less agrees with Romney.

Both are anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-individual - in short: pro-state authoritarians .....

Romney makes a complete dog's breakfast of the matter, making himself look like an incompetent boob, by straying off the question (the matter addressed in Griswold v. Connecticut) and equivocating .... and goes into Roe v. Wade ...

Santorum, after doing his own "deer-in-the-headlights" impression ("Wha ? ..... what's the question ?), follows him there ...

Neither understands the Constitution nor the framers original intent (or understanding, just doesn't like it) .... lightweights .....

The audience reaction, in response to the Greek's pressuring Romney to fess up, tells one of the general level of stupidity present in the audience (and probably the general population)

Dr. Paul, knowing and understanding the document, and the intent, aces it.

You're complicating the simple by "assuming" that the questioneer actually knows and cares what the Constitution says and is determined to expose those on the stage that don't. I suppose that is one way to look at it but this view also gives said questioneer more credit than what he deserves.

I see it simply that the moderator, having done his homework (after all, these are republicans, not Obama), knows that at least one on the stage may appear to have egg on his face and after all, if nothing else good comes from these debates, we will have supplied the Obama campaign with some excellent footage should "the egged one" end up being the candidate!

After all, that's what it's about in the end, isn't it?? Protecting their messiah at all costs??

 

[RLENT]

You're complicating the simple by "assuming" that the questioneer actually knows and cares what the Constitution says and is determined to expose those on the stage that don't.

Nothing I said addressed the questioners motivations (it's you that seem to be singularly focused on that ) - it's only the result of his questions that I'm concerned with.

Results that you seem entirely unwilling to see for what they are, instead having to divert attention off them and blame the questioner - instead of the person that was responsible for supplying the answer.

Hilarious.

I suppose that is one way to look at it

Yup, it is ....

but this view also gives said questioneer more credit than what he deserves.

An incorrect importance .... having been sucked into the false paradigm of diametrically-opposed ideologies, and further, willingly enlisted as a partisan on one side ... you focus on what is really irrelevant .... an aspect that little to nothing to do with what the process is actually about ....

It's about the answers to the question, which provide a basis to make a selection.

Your focus provides no path to a benefit to a voter trying to understand the differences between the candidates .... it's only result is a further buy-in to the "they're all agin us" mindset ....

I see it simply that the moderator, having done his homework (after all, these are republicans, not Obama), knows that at least one on the stage may appear to have egg on his face and after all, if nothing else good comes from these debates, we will have supplied the Obama campaign with some excellent footage should "the egged one" end up being the candidate!

After all, that's what it's about in the end, isn't it?? Protecting their messiah at all costs??

Your argument in this matter is essentially the converse: protecting all the potential messiahs by invoking the vast left-wing media conspiracy.

While that is undoubtedly self-affirming of a particular worldview, it provides no practical means or benefit to a voter to move the process along, in terms of selection of a candidate.

You fail to focus on what should be the relevant and important thing to the voter (what the candidates are about) ..... but instead zero in on what is largely the irrelevant and insignificant.

The process is what it is .... there is no changing that at the moment ... and no amount of wistful wishing that it was Rich Lowry, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg or whoever asking the questions is likely going to change that ... at least in the immediate future.

Bottomline: both Romney and Santorum looked like idiots - not because of what question was asked, but because of who they are and how they ultimately answered ....

 

[aristotle]

The following, in a nutshell, tells one all one needs to know:

The little Greek asks: "But you accept the Supreme Court's decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution ?"

Romney responds: "I don't believe they decided that correctly ....."

Santorum later chimes in that he more or less agrees with Romney.

Both are anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-individual - in short: pro-state authoritarians .....

Romney makes a complete dog's breakfast of the matter, making himself look like an incompetent boob, by straying off the question (the matter addressed in Griswold v. Connecticut) and equivocating .... and goes into Roe v. Wade ...

Santorum, after doing his own "deer-in-the-headlights" impression ("Wha ? ..... what's the question ?), follows him there ...

Neither understands the Constitution nor the framers original intent (or understanding, just doesn't like it) .... lightweights .....

The audience reaction, in response to the Greek's pressuring Romney to fess up, tells one of the general level of stupidity present in the audience (and probably the general population)

Dr. Paul, knowing and understanding the document, and the intent, aces it.

It is understood Ron Paul supporters may not like Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. However, to state they do not understand the US Constitution is plain wrong. Both were legal scholars. Romney earned his law degree from Harvard. Santorum earned his law degree from Dickinson School of Law.

Whereas, Ron Paul holds a doctorate in medicine, Romney and Santorum each hold a doctorate in jurisprudence. Rest assured, Mitt and Rick have a thorough mastery of the US Constitution. Simply because someone likes Ron Paul's rhetoric doesn't mean he has any special insight into the Constitution. Individuals are free to put their spin on the meaning and intent of our Constitution. In reality, the meaning and intent of the Constitution is exactly whatever five of nine US Supreme Court justices say it is at any moment in time.

Our Founders placed final interpretation of Constitutional matters solely with justices of the Supreme Court. Ron Paul's views of the Constitution carry just as much weight as those of every other US citizen. We can trust Ron Paul's OB/GYN expertise. Beyond that, he's winging it.

 

[dieseldiva]

I think what we have here are two different opinions coming from two different views of this debate. Just as someone that wasn't involved in the political process would look at the debate in yet another way. We all have friends or relatives that don't involve themselves, you know, the ones that look at you like you have three heads when you bring up a political thought, those that can't be bothered with actually putting any thought into the process....those are the ones.

I think you see things through the eyes of the constitutionalist, as do I in certain situations. Obviously, this is what you saw with the "birth control" question. I, on the other hand, saw a ridiculous question (for the times) being asked by yet another Obama hack drone. This doesn't mean that I don't have an ear for the candidate's answers, obviously that's one of the main points of the debate, it just means that I'm coming from a different place than you.

Take a look at the differences in these debates. Even the Sunday morning debate held by NBC was better than what ABC had to offer on Saturday night. Compare the questions and attitudes of Diane Sawyer with those of Megyn Kelly of Fox.....and I don't say this because she's with Fox, she just has a far more professional and unbiased attitude toward the candidates than Sawyer could ever hope of having.

So I took you around the barn to say this........what the question is, how it's delivered, and who it's delivered by does come into play, it has to, IMHO, because a biased moderator can make a truly ignorant or (insert your word) candidate look like something they're not and unfortunately, that's what I feel the agenda is too much of the time these days.