Star Parker: Why the Presidential Debates Aren't Serious

Star Parker today has what is wrong with the media debates and frankly why a lot of voters consider debates worthless.

Have to admit that these are the worst series of debates by the media and some other groups I have ever seen.  Fox News may take the prize for the most worthless debate ever last Thurday night.  The questions that were asked makes you wonder if Fox News wants Obama and the soft money policy of the Fed to continue and are willing to keep the status quo.  Hard to come up with another explanation for the questions.  Why no substance with the questions in the debates?  If I read about Gardasil one more time after a debate, I am going to scream.

CNN polling after the debate and the Orlando straw poll has Perry losing little and still leading -- looks like regular Americans understand more than the Fox media and know that debates and straw polls are absolutely worthess.  Are straw a gauge of support?  Not in most cases as they don't represent most voters but a small handful of people.  Have personal experience to know how unethical they can be as well.  What are the Fox pundits and others going to do now that Perry didn't tank?

Why the presidential debates aren't serious 

By: Star Parker | 09/24/11 8:05 PM | Examiner Columnist 

The presidential debates are looking more like symptoms of our problems than they do like part of the solution.Maximum style, minimum substance. Focus on sizzle, forget about the steak. 

These events are supposed to be about quality information, raising the bar, and producing a thoughtful, informed electorate. But they are being produced to provide entertainment, and we are barely getting that.Technology doesn't take the place of substance. YouTube and real-time polling are not substitutes for thoughtful, provocative questioning. 

Can it really be, after all the heat he has taken on Social Security, that Rick Perry was not pushed on how specifically how he would reform it? 

Can it be, as expert after expert has laid out the long list of failures of Romneycare in Massachusetts and its unquestionable similarities to Obamacare, that Mitt Romney was not called out on his sidestepping and denials? 

Can it be that, on a day where the stock market in our country dropped 3.5 percent and in China by 5 percent, that candidates were not asked what they think is wrong with the global economy? 

Can it be that, when many experts agree that government meddling in housing and mortgages was central to the recent financial collapse, there has not been a single question on why Fannie and Freddie are still standing, propped up by government, and untouched? 

Why, when everyone knows that Rick Santorum is a social conservative, would the question on "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military be directed at him? His answer was a surprise to no one. 

Why wasn't Romney the one questioned on this? 

Why, instead of wasting time on stupid questions like "Who on this stage would you choose as your vice president?" would the question not be asked "Who is your favorite justice on the Supreme Court"? 

Both Romney and Michele Bachmann have said they will repeal Obamacare on day one. 

Shouldn't someone ask what happens on day two? hat would they do to fix our health care system, which clearly has problems? 

With all the focus on Social Security, policy experts generally agree that the problems of Medicare are much bigger and more complex. Yet, there has not been a single question about how to reform Medicare. 

But perhaps even more fundamentally, the cable sponsors of these events have failed grotesquely to bring out the fault lines that divide these Republican candidates and the Republican Party. 

Where are these candidates on Roe v. Wade and the role of law in protecting unborn lives? 

Where are these candidates on preservation on the integrity of traditional marriage? 

With all the talk about states' rights, why are there no questions about the appropriateness of a federal court overturning a popular vote in the state of California -- Proposition 8 -- to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in their state? 

Or the denial of the District of Columbia government to even allow a vote of its residents on this issue before declaring same-sex marriage legal?

Does the collapse of the traditional family in America -- something undeniably happening as we rapidly approach having half of our children born to unwed mothers -- even matter? Should candidates not be forced to weigh in on this? 

The downward spiral into an exclusively technocratic discussion about the economy -- like we're all laboratory mice in a box with politicians pushing the buttons -- obfuscates key differences between these Republican candidates and the two parties. 

It is a symptom of the big problems of our country that we appear incapable of having presidential debates with serious questions. 

Examiner Columnist Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (urbancure.org). She is syndicated nationally by Scripps Howard News Service.

Read more at the Washington Examiner 

Like millions of Americans, I join those ignoring the debates as nonsense.  I was at the airport Thursday night during the debate and looks like from all accounts of regular people that Fox News hit rock bottom.  Don't know what Murdoch and Fox News are up to but anyone who thinks they are a friend of grassroots conservatives need to think again.  If a Presidential candidate cannot stay a member of the Fox Team, why do they have Karl Rove still giving his two cents when he is Romney's adviser trying to tank Gov Perry?  If that is not a conflict of interest or the fact that Crossroads gave major dollars to candidates in 2010 who now are endorsing Romney, I don't know what is.  That's not a story?  Not in the Fox World of Murdoch it seems.

Not only are the debates not serious, some of the questions are downright stupid.  We agree with Star Parker if Perry goes after social security ask him what his plan is and also ask Romney about RomneyCare.  Not these debates as the moderators are asking questions meant to stir up animosity.  There are way too many debates and have yet to see questions on much substance.

On immigration you have a group of candidates who don't have a clue about what goes on with the border states.  Do you hear questions asked about the Hezbollah and the Drug Cartels who are on the border actively working?  Not on your life, you have to concentrate on children and college age students who were brought to this country through no fault of their own.

Shame that a Governor who believes every child in his state deserves a quality education gets clobbered by the anti-illegal crowd.  Education is the path to the future and I am not going to tell some high school senior who has lived here all their life that they have to pay out of state tuition or go back to Mexico when this is the only country they know.  Illegal immigration is against the law but it goes back years and the solution that some come up with to send over 11,000,000 people back is not feasible.  How about the children who were born here?  Are we going to tell them because their parents are here illegally that they can stay but their parents have to go back to Mexico?

Crime along the border is at an all time high which should be the focus right now.  I am not concerned about a roofer who is putting on my roof being here illegally, but I am concerned about the violence on the border and potential for Hezbollah to do real damage in the United States.  Shame the anti-illegal group cares more about a family then they do the real problems on the border.  As we have said many times, that fence along the Texas border will not work but Fox News, some of the candidates, and others don't seem to have a clue.

Star Parker has nailed the problem with the worthless debates we are seeing.  The questions keep ignoring the problems that are faced in this Country as the moderators attempt to tank Republicans.  Why?  Is it to help Obama have four more years of his socialist policy so it will bring in more revenue to the cable news networks with advertisers.  Is this what it is all about?  The almighty dollar that Murdoch will sell his soul along with Soros to get even more money and influence.  Food for thought!

Surprise Rise in Jobless Claims Stokes Recovery Worries

A synopses of the Obama economy by Instapundit. The bottom line: Economy is in bad shape and getting worse thanks to the Obama agenda.

July 1, 2010

UNEXPECTEDLY! Surprise Rise in Jobless Claims Stokes Recovery Worries. “New claims for state unemployment aid unexpectedly rose last week, heightening fears the U.S. economic recovery is stalling.” Those darn expectations.

And it’s Obama’s fault: “Obama has sought to remake America into a social democracy — like Germany or France — with a larger public sector, expanded entitlements, stronger labor unions and a changed political structure. He’s doing quite well so far. ” With France’s unemployment levels.

UPDATE:

Down periscope! Pending Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Fell 30% in May on Tax Credit’s End.

ISM Index of Manufacturing in U.S. Decreased to 56.2 in June.

Treasury Yield Curve Flattest Since September as Jobless Claims Increase.

Construction Spending in U.S. Falls for First Time in 3 Months.

“Recovery summer!” If you were trying to kill private sector growth, you couldn’t do much better than the Obama Administration has done.

Source: Instapundit)

Everyone Must Go, If We Want to Win In Afghanistan

This retired Air Force General has it right -- Everyone Must Go! The odds of the United States and the NATO allies winning with the Obama/McChrystal Rules of Engagement (ROE) being carried out by General McChrystal before he was fired (submitted resignation) are slim to none. If General Petreaus doesn't immediately change those Rules, it is time to admit defeat and bring our soldiers home to protect us here from the terrorist who will follow after a defeat in Afghanistan.

This is the most inept group of people ever to head our National Security starting with Obama who is opposed to even saying the words "War on Terror" which speaks volumes about him and his loyalty which is not fully to the United States as exhibited by his words and actions. His fist major speech was to the Arab World as he tried to act like it is a Tea Party not a War on Terrorism. These Islamic Jihadists want to kill us not have 'tea' at the White House. The 'kumbyya" approach doesn't work with terrorist. Obama's outreach to the Islamic States while trashing our closest allies, Britain and Israel, has left many of us wondering how much worse it can get with Obama and his Administration.

General McInerney has given excellent reasons why the Afghanistan Obama Team must go. We would like to take it one step further and say the National Security Team should be fired. Some of these people like Clinton at Secretary of State should never have been appointed.


Hillary Clinton kisses Soho Arafat after Soha's Terrorist Speech
This is an example of Hillary Clinton playing up to our enemies and now she is Secretary of State who wanted to be President. We are not sure she would have been any different than Obama except the taxpayer would have had to foot the bill for flying ash trays and lamps if she had won. She is the boss of Ambassadors Eikenberry and Holbrooke who have done more harm to the Afghanistan War than help yet she has done nothing to make the situation better. Since the buck stops at the desk as the person in charge -- she needs to go for failure to act when confronted with numerous complaints about Eikenberry and Holbrooke.

The anti War on Terror group has taken over running our National Security team with the exception of Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen who we are not ready to lump in with the others just yet but they are getting there rapidly for failing to stand up to Obama and for our troops.

Your Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have accepted these ridiculous new definitions of the threat.

We were bothered when Gates and Mullen accepted new defintions and new Rules of Engagement without much of a fight. The number of casualties since the new Rules of Engagement went into force have increased dramatically. Expecting our soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their back with little air power is asking them to go on suicide missions.

General Petreaus we hope has the opportunity to change the Rules of Engagement to favor our soldiers not the enemy. We question whether Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen decides to allow General Petreaus to run the war and not micro manage him from the Defense Department. Imagine our shock when looking for what General Mullen said about changing the Rules of Engagement and discovering what Mullen had to say to Karzi.

America's top military officer assured President Hamid Karzai that newly chosen NATO commander Gen. David Petraeus would pursue the policies of his ousted predecessor, whom the Afghan leader warmly praised for reducing civilian casualties. (snip)

Karzai's emphasis on preventing civilian deaths and injuries could make it difficult for NATO to relax rules of fighting that some U.S. troops say give the battlefield advantage to the Taliban. For now, however, no changes have been proposed, said a spokesman for visiting Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

That does not sound good if true -- looks like business as usual in Afghanistan where the Taliban can hide out in villages and be safe while they pick off our soldiers one by one.

General McInerney is right -- Everyone Must Go including Gates and Mullens for not standing up for their troops. They look to be nothing more than lapdogs now for Obama and his National Security advisors.

Where is a General Myers, a Stormin' Norman or a Tommy Franks when you need them? Our military knew that those three Generals put them first. Shame on Gates and General Mullen for caving into the Obama and his agenda.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney

- FOXNews.com

- June 29, 2010

Everyone Must Go, If We Want to Win In Afghanistan

President Obama has latched on to Gen. Petraeus as a lifeline to save his Afghanistan war strategy. But he must be bold and change course, right now.

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and numerous other Democratic political leaders chastised General David Petraeus during his Iraq surge testimony in September 2007. A full-page placed by MoveOn.org in The New York Times labeled General Petraeus "General Betray Us" and was not condemned by any of them.

Now President Obama has latched on to Gen. Petraeus as a lifeline to save his Afghanistan war strategy. What a paradox. A better name for Obama's new view of Gen. Petraeus might be "General Save Us." Will Gen. Petraeus be able to pull off this challenge with the current Counterinsurgency (COIN) Strategy and the dangerous Rules of Engagement (ROE) that General McCrystal had instituted in his year in his role as ISAF and U.S. Forces Afghanistan commander? Unfortunately, I don't think so. That is, unless both the strategy is changed and the rules of engagement are dramatically altered and new leadership is provided to both the Defense and State departments.

First to the State Department: Ambassadors Eikenberry and Holbrooke have long outlived their effectiveness. They are a drag on success in this difficult war. They must go.

Next, to the Department of Defense: This a war is not an "Overseas Contigency Operation (OCO)" as President Obama’s administration calls it. We have lost 89 ISAF soldiers and 53 US soldiers this month with 2 days left to go.

Mr. President, we are in a violent war against radical Islam and your denial of this fact will ensure our defeat.

You and your administration cannot even define the ideology we are fighting against. John Brennan, your National Security adviser for counterterrorism, thinks "jihad" means "holy struggle" not a war against infidels.

Your Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have accepted these ridiculous new definitions of the threat.

This means you, and your national security leadership team are clueless about how to defeat this violent threat against America.

They must all go and you must change your senseless strategy.

How can we expect General Petraeus to defeat the Taliban when he does not have a leadership team supporting him the way the Bush administration's team did during the surge in Iraq?

Read More at Fox News and
USA Today