” … As far as Republican primary debates go, there may be no moderators so well trusted as these. Anyone who thinks Fox News would be accommodating to Republican candidates would do well to revisit the debates the network sponsored during the 2012 cycle. The Aug. 11, 2011, debate in Ames, Iowa, moderated by Baier and Wallace, offered a master class in the art of grilling. Echoing the sentiments of many, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg concluded that the moderators had “subjected the GOP contenders to tougher, rougher, questions than any debate I can remember.” …
“But pushing candidates past their talking points is no easy task. Baier opened that 2011 debate by pleading with the candidates to ‘try to put aside the talking points, to try to put aside the polished lines that get applause on the campaign trail … and to level with the American people, to speak from the heart.’ ….
“ ‘One of the biggest challenges we face is that, unlike on our respective shows where you can interrupt the candidate if he strays, there are rules for these debates and you have to respect them unless you want to restart the clock,’ Kelly said. ‘Having said that, we do our best. We try to anticipate the talking points that they’ve used in the past.’
“Wallace added: ‘One advantage we do have in a debate is we can get the candidates to engage with each other. Sometimes that’s a good way to get them off their talking points.’ … ”
________________________________
” … First, this debate will be an important part of the ‘invisible primary.’ There are lots of good articles and books out there on the invisible primary, but here are the basics: In the invisible primary, ‘party elite’ (defined broadly as anyone who uses their time, money or influence to advocate for their preferred candidate – which means everyone from Iowa door-knockers to governors of key primary states) attempt to reach consensus on which candidate to support. These party actors then use their resources and influence to give their preferred candidate a boost before primary voters head to the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. The party elite are not all-powerful – candidates who have won the invisible primary have gone on to lose or nearly lose the nomination, and sometimes the party is too fractured to give any candidate a clear invisible primary win – but the support of these elite actors does seem to matter. …
“…. Second, this debate will have an impact on media coverage of the candidates. Specifically, candidates have an opportunity to get good or bad press or to kick off a media-wide ‘discovery’ of a candidate or ‘scrutiny’ of Trump. …
“Third, and perhaps most importantly, many voters will be really introduced to these candidates for the first time. While the party and the media play a large role in influencing voters, voters themselves matter the most. There are a massive number of ways any one candidate could leverage the debate to speak to his or her desired coalition in a persuasive way, so it’s harder to play these scenarios out. But if a candidate manages to speak clearly, directly and persuasively to their coalition through this debate, that could really make a difference.”
_________________________________
I will watch the debates. You can more4 likely tell what the candidate really thinks. I still would have voted for GW Bush over Gore and Kerry, but he didn’t have a conservative agenda. He talked like a conservative, but< as Rush says, "He didn't have an agenda."
To be fair, Bush was slammed with what was probably the biggest crisis of our era — 9/11. In dealing with that, I thought he did exceptionally well (though not perfect, but then no one would have done everything perfectly — hindsight is 20/20, you know).
And I liked his approach of what then was called (I think Olasky tagged the term originally) “compassionate conservatism.”
I can only imagine the world now had Gore and Kerry won, only to be topped off by Obama.
A problem was,, they didn’t have anyone in Washington who understood Islam. I didn’t either at the time, but I have since studied Islam extensively.
The thing about that is, they should have. One of the first books I read was Terrorist Hunter by “Anonymous”, outed by now as Rita Katz. (The Steve Emerson you often see on TV WRT things Islamic is her “”Max”) Rita briefed the Clintons and, I think, Bush on Muslim activities.
I didn’t know at the time, they should have, that Muslims cannot be democratic. The Mullahs rule. Like the old empires under ancient Catholicism, that is their government. A democratic Iraq was/is not possible. We should have left Sadaam and all the other dictators in power. at least they kept order. Now we have Chaos.
And I think they will have chaos until the rider on the white horse, (Rev. 6:2) comes by to set things in order.
It won’t be a “democratic” government. I may be wrong abut the “white horse” thing, but not this.
Notice I used past tense above, “The problem WAS? They understand Islam perfectly in the White House now. They are not ignorant of what is happening.
First, no Kerry and probably no Obama. Instead McCain/Romney vs Lieberman/Edwards (biden) in 2008
Domestically things wouldnt t be much different. The price of gas would be higher with more reliance on alternative energy. The 2008 recession with bank bailouts would still happen. A tighter regulatory framework may have emerged but highly doubtful.
In foreign policy, a cooler relationship with the saudis would emerge from 9/11 which fit well with Gore’s anti fossil fuel approach anyway. A limited afghan operation would see a northern alliance govt and the probable return of the taliban in a few years. With no iraq invasion there would be no ISIS. But the syrian civil war with us involvement on the anti assad side would still happen. The muslim brotherhood would rule egypt. Not sure if putin and the ukraine wouldbe any different. US-Cuba relations would still improve but i have my doubts about Iran. Obama managed to get Russia, china, france, the uk and iran all on the same page. Whatever one thinks of the actual treaty thats impressive. Without everybody together, there would be no treaty and no other American politician could do that.
I’m inclined to agree with HRW. With Bush, the Democratic congress got what it wanted anyhow. And Gore doesn’t hate America. Whatever else I might say about him, he doesn’t hate America.
After Gore, we likely would have got a Republican president. McCain would likely have been it.
Not so good after all.
So who’s watching the debate tomorrow? Guess I’ll tune in, hard to ignore what will be the opening scene on a crowded stage — although things are bound to change dramatically between now and the primaries. Long way to go yet.
“New Hampshire legislators stripped the state’s six Planned Parenthood clinics of state funds Wednesday, deleting roughly one third of their public funding.
The state’s Republican-led Executive Council rejected a $639,000 funding contract with Planned Parenthood, reported local ABC affiliate WMUR9. The Council cited a series of undercover videos in the meeting, which show top Planned Parenthood doctors discussing and participating in the harvesting, dissection, and distribution of aborted fetuses.”
Wandering Views 
Interesting Politico piece on the prep for Thursday night’s debate on Fox:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/fox-news-2016-gop-debate-host-nerves-121013.html?hp=t3_r
___________________________
” … As far as Republican primary debates go, there may be no moderators so well trusted as these. Anyone who thinks Fox News would be accommodating to Republican candidates would do well to revisit the debates the network sponsored during the 2012 cycle. The Aug. 11, 2011, debate in Ames, Iowa, moderated by Baier and Wallace, offered a master class in the art of grilling. Echoing the sentiments of many, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg concluded that the moderators had “subjected the GOP contenders to tougher, rougher, questions than any debate I can remember.” …
“But pushing candidates past their talking points is no easy task. Baier opened that 2011 debate by pleading with the candidates to ‘try to put aside the talking points, to try to put aside the polished lines that get applause on the campaign trail … and to level with the American people, to speak from the heart.’ ….
“ ‘One of the biggest challenges we face is that, unlike on our respective shows where you can interrupt the candidate if he strays, there are rules for these debates and you have to respect them unless you want to restart the clock,’ Kelly said. ‘Having said that, we do our best. We try to anticipate the talking points that they’ve used in the past.’
“Wallace added: ‘One advantage we do have in a debate is we can get the candidates to engage with each other. Sometimes that’s a good way to get them off their talking points.’ … ”
________________________________
LikeLike
And more on the debate and why it matters:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/04/why_thursdays_debate_matters_but_most_dont_127652.html
______________________________
” … First, this debate will be an important part of the ‘invisible primary.’ There are lots of good articles and books out there on the invisible primary, but here are the basics: In the invisible primary, ‘party elite’ (defined broadly as anyone who uses their time, money or influence to advocate for their preferred candidate – which means everyone from Iowa door-knockers to governors of key primary states) attempt to reach consensus on which candidate to support. These party actors then use their resources and influence to give their preferred candidate a boost before primary voters head to the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. The party elite are not all-powerful – candidates who have won the invisible primary have gone on to lose or nearly lose the nomination, and sometimes the party is too fractured to give any candidate a clear invisible primary win – but the support of these elite actors does seem to matter. …
“…. Second, this debate will have an impact on media coverage of the candidates. Specifically, candidates have an opportunity to get good or bad press or to kick off a media-wide ‘discovery’ of a candidate or ‘scrutiny’ of Trump. …
“Third, and perhaps most importantly, many voters will be really introduced to these candidates for the first time. While the party and the media play a large role in influencing voters, voters themselves matter the most. There are a massive number of ways any one candidate could leverage the debate to speak to his or her desired coalition in a persuasive way, so it’s harder to play these scenarios out. But if a candidate manages to speak clearly, directly and persuasively to their coalition through this debate, that could really make a difference.”
_________________________________
LikeLike
I will watch the debates. You can more4 likely tell what the candidate really thinks. I still would have voted for GW Bush over Gore and Kerry, but he didn’t have a conservative agenda. He talked like a conservative, but< as Rush says, "He didn't have an agenda."
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be fair, Bush was slammed with what was probably the biggest crisis of our era — 9/11. In dealing with that, I thought he did exceptionally well (though not perfect, but then no one would have done everything perfectly — hindsight is 20/20, you know).
And I liked his approach of what then was called (I think Olasky tagged the term originally) “compassionate conservatism.”
I can only imagine the world now had Gore and Kerry won, only to be topped off by Obama.
LikeLike
A problem was,, they didn’t have anyone in Washington who understood Islam. I didn’t either at the time, but I have since studied Islam extensively.
The thing about that is, they should have. One of the first books I read was Terrorist Hunter by “Anonymous”, outed by now as Rita Katz. (The Steve Emerson you often see on TV WRT things Islamic is her “”Max”) Rita briefed the Clintons and, I think, Bush on Muslim activities.
I didn’t know at the time, they should have, that Muslims cannot be democratic. The Mullahs rule. Like the old empires under ancient Catholicism, that is their government. A democratic Iraq was/is not possible. We should have left Sadaam and all the other dictators in power. at least they kept order. Now we have Chaos.
And I think they will have chaos until the rider on the white horse, (Rev. 6:2) comes by to set things in order.
It won’t be a “democratic” government. I may be wrong abut the “white horse” thing, but not this.
Notice I used past tense above, “The problem WAS? They understand Islam perfectly in the White House now. They are not ignorant of what is happening.
LikeLike
Alternate history? Gore instead Of Bush?
First, no Kerry and probably no Obama. Instead McCain/Romney vs Lieberman/Edwards (biden) in 2008
Domestically things wouldnt t be much different. The price of gas would be higher with more reliance on alternative energy. The 2008 recession with bank bailouts would still happen. A tighter regulatory framework may have emerged but highly doubtful.
In foreign policy, a cooler relationship with the saudis would emerge from 9/11 which fit well with Gore’s anti fossil fuel approach anyway. A limited afghan operation would see a northern alliance govt and the probable return of the taliban in a few years. With no iraq invasion there would be no ISIS. But the syrian civil war with us involvement on the anti assad side would still happen. The muslim brotherhood would rule egypt. Not sure if putin and the ukraine wouldbe any different. US-Cuba relations would still improve but i have my doubts about Iran. Obama managed to get Russia, china, france, the uk and iran all on the same page. Whatever one thinks of the actual treaty thats impressive. Without everybody together, there would be no treaty and no other American politician could do that.
LikeLike
Reality is everywhere.
Dutch King: The Welfare State Is Over
https://ricochet.com/dutch-king-the-welfare-state-is-over/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m inclined to agree with HRW. With Bush, the Democratic congress got what it wanted anyhow. And Gore doesn’t hate America. Whatever else I might say about him, he doesn’t hate America.
After Gore, we likely would have got a Republican president. McCain would likely have been it.
Not so good after all.
LikeLike
So who’s watching the debate tomorrow? Guess I’ll tune in, hard to ignore what will be the opening scene on a crowded stage — although things are bound to change dramatically between now and the primaries. Long way to go yet.
LikeLike
Hey, if nothing else, Obama will be out of office. That alone cheers me up. 🙂 It’s been a long, painful (almost) 8 years.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/barack-obamas-lowest-moment-yet.php
LikeLike
Hey it the feds won’t do it because they’re too beholden to the blood money, then let the states do it. 🙂
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/05/new-hampshire-defunds-planned-parenthood-rejects-600k-contract/
“New Hampshire legislators stripped the state’s six Planned Parenthood clinics of state funds Wednesday, deleting roughly one third of their public funding.
The state’s Republican-led Executive Council rejected a $639,000 funding contract with Planned Parenthood, reported local ABC affiliate WMUR9. The Council cited a series of undercover videos in the meeting, which show top Planned Parenthood doctors discussing and participating in the harvesting, dissection, and distribution of aborted fetuses.”
LikeLike