CNN Opens the debate with...
Santorum -- "The Late Contender"
Romney -- "The Long Distance Runner"
Gingrich -- "The determined Challenger"
Paul -- "The Delegate Hunter"
Sigh.
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Republican Primaries -- Pro Wrestling, A Difference Without a Distinction to CNN...
polifrog
CNN Opens the debate with...
Sigh.
CNN Opens the debate with...
Sigh.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Romney Is Here to Defend ObamaCare - "It's not worth Getting Angry About"...
polifrog
It damn well is worthy of anger. And I thank Santorum for finally bringing ObamaCare, the number one issue, after countless debates, to a debate. Not even Newt seemed willing to do that.
Mitt Romney's position regarding ObamaCare sorely needed this pounding and we the voters needed to see it.
It was about damn time. Thank you, Santorum.
out
It damn well is worthy of anger. And I thank Santorum for finally bringing ObamaCare, the number one issue, after countless debates, to a debate. Not even Newt seemed willing to do that.
Mitt Romney's position regarding ObamaCare sorely needed this pounding and we the voters needed to see it.
It was about damn time. Thank you, Santorum.
out
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Don't Believe Romney On ObamaCare...
polifrog
Florida Debate II, Romeny:
Politicians regularly "take action" that is never intended to bear fruit. Romney can not be trusted to kill ObamaCare. He is a firewall for the entrenched conservative elites already feeding or planning to feed off ObamaCare graft.
out
Florida Debate II, Romeny:
If I were president, day one, I will take action to repeal ObamaCare.
Politicians regularly "take action" that is never intended to bear fruit. Romney can not be trusted to kill ObamaCare. He is a firewall for the entrenched conservative elites already feeding or planning to feed off ObamaCare graft.
out
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
What Newt Learned Last Night...
polifrog
Newt via The Hill:
out
Newt via The Hill:
“I wish in retrospect I had protested when Brian Williams took [the crowd] out of it because I think it’s wrong,” he said. “I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate.”
out
Monday, January 23, 2012
No Nuclear Newt...
polifrog
The debate tonight in Florida was boring. NBC's imploring the audience to refrain from applause did not help matters....not that it a mattered.
The source of most, if not all, of the fun at the recent Republican debates has been Newt's willingness to take on the presumptive arbiters of morality in media. First there was Juan Williams who claimed most Americans viewed the work ethic as insulting then ABC which open a presidential debate with a question concerning accusations made by Newt's wife.
Nothing similar occurred in Florida. Newt turned it off. He could have responded with ovation garnering theatrics in response to jabs from both Santorum and Romney. He did not.
There was no nuclear Newt because there is no "volatile Newt".
Simply put Newt, with his repeated dust offs when provoked, is proving that he is a man in control.
out
The debate tonight in Florida was boring. NBC's imploring the audience to refrain from applause did not help matters....not that it a mattered.
The source of most, if not all, of the fun at the recent Republican debates has been Newt's willingness to take on the presumptive arbiters of morality in media. First there was Juan Williams who claimed most Americans viewed the work ethic as insulting then ABC which open a presidential debate with a question concerning accusations made by Newt's wife.
Nothing similar occurred in Florida. Newt turned it off. He could have responded with ovation garnering theatrics in response to jabs from both Santorum and Romney. He did not.
There was no nuclear Newt because there is no "volatile Newt".
Simply put Newt, with his repeated dust offs when provoked, is proving that he is a man in control.
out
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Friday, August 12, 2011
Newt Last Night and a Reminder...
polifrog
For a man who can get so much so right:
he can get so much so wrong, as when he expressed support for a version of the individual mandate:
As I said then:
out
For a man who can get so much so right:
he can get so much so wrong, as when he expressed support for a version of the individual mandate:
As I said then:
I like Newt, and believe he raises the bar of debate, but if he is unaware that supporting a "version" of the individual mandate is an untenable position in today's conservative party then he has no business in the race.
out
Monday, October 11, 2010
Rep Mike McIntyre (NC-7) and Ilario Pantano to Debate Tonight....
polifrog
Rep. Mike McIntyre and Ilario Pantano will conduct their final debate tonight.
This debate will also be available for viewing live WECT Plus and WECT.com.
out
Rep. Mike McIntyre and Ilario Pantano will conduct their final debate tonight.
- Where -- Odell Williamson Auditorium on the campus of Brunswick Community College
- When -- 6:00 PM
- Length -- 1 Hour
This debate will also be available for viewing live WECT Plus and WECT.com.
out
Sunday, October 10, 2010
BJ Lawson, Rep. David Price Debate Impressions....
polifrog
We are all familiar with the formal "straitjacket" style of presidential debates which often devolve into stump-speech time for each candidate. They are frequently boring affairs devoid of the vitality that conversational give and take can provide.
Not so for local debates. It is pleasing to see candidates pleasantly and respectfully joust with one another over differing opinions and approaches to governance. This past Saturday evening debate between David Price (NC-4) and BJ Lawson via WRAL was just such a debate. This debate came across as a round-table discussion rather than a formal rule leaden affair and if there were any debate rules, I was not made aware of them in the opening comments by the moderator. Excellent! Kudos to David Price for agreeing to such a format.
Is this election nationalized?
The first question centered on whether the current election had been nationalized or not and David Price stumbled out of the gate with an unsuccessful attempt to redefine the terms of the question. It is not in Price's interest for the election to be decided on national issues and his wishy-washy answer on the question indicated that while he understood that the election has indeed been nationalized he did not want to admit that it had been.
It would have been nice had BJ Lawson answered "yes, the election has become extremely nationalized", but perhaps he understands the need to not impart a feeling of disaffection to those who vote on local issues. He did, however, explore the out of control process in Washington that no longer works for us.
Is the Dept of Education needed?
During David Price's rebuttal he turned the conversation toward an attack on Lawson's support for abolishing the Dept. of Education. I truly enjoy a debate in which the candidates are able to insert topics of their own choosing as it gives further insight in the mind of the candidate. In this case Price clearly believes he has a winning argument. Price argues that abolishing the Dept of Education would remove $4 billion dollars of funding from NC schools, but he avoids commenting on how those dollars originate as taxes on NC citizens. More importantly, though, is that Price seems unaware that his constituency, which has become intimately aware of Washington spending, is under no illusion that the dollars DC seems so generous with are actually our tax dollars and that when those dollars are returned to us through the Dept. of Education that they come with strings attached.
Lawson makes the point that we were sending more money up to Washington to fund the Dept. of Education than we got back in educational grants until the recent deficit spending splurge kicked in. He went on to argue that we need to keep our resources local so that NC dollars can educate NC children.
Lawson then turned to the student loan system which he argues is another government incentivized (with low interest rates) debt bubble much like the deflating housing bubble we are currently suffering under once was. In return Price charged "this is an absurd view", with no explanation as to how it is absurd.
Bush Tax Cuts..
The last interesting exchange was over the Bush tax cuts and congress' childish decision to leave Washington before deciding whether to extend them or not.
David Price's position was interesting in that he has been in congress and should know full well who controls the nation's purse. Congress. Yet he argues that credit for the 90's economic expansion should go to Bill Clinton when, in fact, it was the Gingrich congress that forced budgetary control on the Federal government at the time. He then argues that the "Bush Tax Cuts " increased the deficit when, in fact, the deficit was decreasing until he and Pelosi took control of congress in Bush's last two years. It was in these last two years of Bush's presidency that the deficit exploded.
David Price seems to be arguing that Clinton gave us an economic expansion and Bush gave us deficit when the reality is that these matters are under the purview of congress. David Price should know better. The TeaParty does. Th fact that he makes the argument, though, leads me to believe Price is not fully aware of how much his electorate has evolved.
Summery
Taken as a whole this debate defines David Price as a politician who's power is dependent on what Washington does for the citizenry. Never have I seen a man create so much fear over losing what Washington gives us. I truly believe that when Price voted for all the Washington spending of the last 2 years that he believed that spending would translate into votes, hence the incessant references to our dependency on Washington money which we all know is really our money.
BJ Lawson, by contrast, is a man arguing for reliance on self and community but most importantly liberty. These are the qualities of a politician who is truly a man of the people rather than a man of Washington DC.
Thanks to WRAL.
out
We are all familiar with the formal "straitjacket" style of presidential debates which often devolve into stump-speech time for each candidate. They are frequently boring affairs devoid of the vitality that conversational give and take can provide.
Not so for local debates. It is pleasing to see candidates pleasantly and respectfully joust with one another over differing opinions and approaches to governance. This past Saturday evening debate between David Price (NC-4) and BJ Lawson via WRAL was just such a debate. This debate came across as a round-table discussion rather than a formal rule leaden affair and if there were any debate rules, I was not made aware of them in the opening comments by the moderator. Excellent! Kudos to David Price for agreeing to such a format.
Is this election nationalized?
The first question centered on whether the current election had been nationalized or not and David Price stumbled out of the gate with an unsuccessful attempt to redefine the terms of the question. It is not in Price's interest for the election to be decided on national issues and his wishy-washy answer on the question indicated that while he understood that the election has indeed been nationalized he did not want to admit that it had been.
It would have been nice had BJ Lawson answered "yes, the election has become extremely nationalized", but perhaps he understands the need to not impart a feeling of disaffection to those who vote on local issues. He did, however, explore the out of control process in Washington that no longer works for us.
Is the Dept of Education needed?
During David Price's rebuttal he turned the conversation toward an attack on Lawson's support for abolishing the Dept. of Education. I truly enjoy a debate in which the candidates are able to insert topics of their own choosing as it gives further insight in the mind of the candidate. In this case Price clearly believes he has a winning argument. Price argues that abolishing the Dept of Education would remove $4 billion dollars of funding from NC schools, but he avoids commenting on how those dollars originate as taxes on NC citizens. More importantly, though, is that Price seems unaware that his constituency, which has become intimately aware of Washington spending, is under no illusion that the dollars DC seems so generous with are actually our tax dollars and that when those dollars are returned to us through the Dept. of Education that they come with strings attached.
Lawson makes the point that we were sending more money up to Washington to fund the Dept. of Education than we got back in educational grants until the recent deficit spending splurge kicked in. He went on to argue that we need to keep our resources local so that NC dollars can educate NC children.
Lawson then turned to the student loan system which he argues is another government incentivized (with low interest rates) debt bubble much like the deflating housing bubble we are currently suffering under once was. In return Price charged "this is an absurd view", with no explanation as to how it is absurd.
Bush Tax Cuts..
The last interesting exchange was over the Bush tax cuts and congress' childish decision to leave Washington before deciding whether to extend them or not.
David Price's position was interesting in that he has been in congress and should know full well who controls the nation's purse. Congress. Yet he argues that credit for the 90's economic expansion should go to Bill Clinton when, in fact, it was the Gingrich congress that forced budgetary control on the Federal government at the time. He then argues that the "Bush Tax Cuts " increased the deficit when, in fact, the deficit was decreasing until he and Pelosi took control of congress in Bush's last two years. It was in these last two years of Bush's presidency that the deficit exploded.
David Price seems to be arguing that Clinton gave us an economic expansion and Bush gave us deficit when the reality is that these matters are under the purview of congress. David Price should know better. The TeaParty does. Th fact that he makes the argument, though, leads me to believe Price is not fully aware of how much his electorate has evolved.
Summery
Taken as a whole this debate defines David Price as a politician who's power is dependent on what Washington does for the citizenry. Never have I seen a man create so much fear over losing what Washington gives us. I truly believe that when Price voted for all the Washington spending of the last 2 years that he believed that spending would translate into votes, hence the incessant references to our dependency on Washington money which we all know is really our money.
BJ Lawson, by contrast, is a man arguing for reliance on self and community but most importantly liberty. These are the qualities of a politician who is truly a man of the people rather than a man of Washington DC.
Thanks to WRAL.
out
Friday, October 8, 2010
A Reminder: Rep.David Price and BJ Lawson Are Scheduled to Debate Tonight...
polifrog
Constituents will be allowed to submit questions to David Price and BJ Lawson. Brad (Rep. In Hiding) Miller, where are you?
Via the Independent Weekly and BullCityRising.com.
Don't forget your cameras.
out
Constituents will be allowed to submit questions to David Price and BJ Lawson. Brad (Rep. In Hiding) Miller, where are you?
- Where: Durham Transportation Center, 515 W Pettigrew St.
- When: Fri., Oct. 8, 6:30 p.m.
Via the Independent Weekly and BullCityRising.com.
Public may submit questions to the candidates at the event or in advance by e-mailing editors@indyweek.com. The 4th Congressional District includes Durham, Orange & parts of Chatham & Western Wake (Cary, Fuquay, Holly Springs, New Hill, Morrisville) counties.
Don't forget your cameras.
out
Monday, October 4, 2010
Rep GK Butterfield, Ashley Woolard Debate Impressions....
polifrog
This is my first exposure to Ashley Woolard; he has passion, understanding of the issues and what seems to be a consistent among the Tea Party supporters running for office... youth. Rep GK Butterfield by comparison was unprepared, disheveled and seemed almost bothered by the fact that he had been taken from his important business in DC.
There were six questions in the debate and they were all difficult for Butterfield to address. All but one indicate the nationalized nature of this election. In fact, the only question that hearkened to anything local was one concerning possible bribery in relation Butterfield's acceptance of campaign funds from Charlie Rangel then later sitting on an ethics panel investigating Rangel. Butterfield refused to recuse himself despite the obvious conflict of interest involved. Overall, though, the majority of the questions are a direct result of governing against the will of the people and the fact that every major bill tackled by congress was unpopular.
A few of quotes sum up some of their positions nicely.
This election could not be clearer. Some of us believe in America while some believe in American government.
out
This is my first exposure to Ashley Woolard; he has passion, understanding of the issues and what seems to be a consistent among the Tea Party supporters running for office... youth. Rep GK Butterfield by comparison was unprepared, disheveled and seemed almost bothered by the fact that he had been taken from his important business in DC.
There were six questions in the debate and they were all difficult for Butterfield to address. All but one indicate the nationalized nature of this election. In fact, the only question that hearkened to anything local was one concerning possible bribery in relation Butterfield's acceptance of campaign funds from Charlie Rangel then later sitting on an ethics panel investigating Rangel. Butterfield refused to recuse himself despite the obvious conflict of interest involved. Overall, though, the majority of the questions are a direct result of governing against the will of the people and the fact that every major bill tackled by congress was unpopular.
A few of quotes sum up some of their positions nicely.
- GK Butterfield on the economy:
We need more people to pay income taxes. That's the way we are going to grow our economy.
- Ashley Woolard on ObamaCare:
The bottom line reality is - this is not about about health care, it's about more government control and that's what we're sick of. We're sick of people like my opponent going into Washington, telling them what's better for us, better for our families, and better for our lives. It's nonsense.
- Ashley Woolard on GK. Butterfield's skimming per diem expenses:
You have been taking the taxpayer's money and putting it in your pocket and you will not account for it. It's unacceptable behavior... The people of the US are sick of it and that's what's wrong with Washington, people such as yourself. You don't represent the people by putting the people's money in your pocket and not accounting for it.
- GK Butterfield on the Dept. of Education:
Our school system in NC. depends on support from the US Dept. of Education ... We sent some Recovery Act funds to the school system in Beaufort Co.
- Ashley Woolard on the Dept. of Education:
I believe the Dept of Education is just another big major bureaucracy created by liberal democrats to control the lives of the citizenry. I believe the folks of Eastern NC are more than capable of making the choices of what's better for their school systems than a bunch of bureaucrats running around Washington DC.
This election could not be clearer. Some of us believe in America while some believe in American government.
out
Rep Brad Miller and Bill Randall Debate Scheduled....
polifrog
Update:
Miller /Randall debate impressions here.
ABC 11 is sponsoring four congressional debates. The first, between Butterfield and Woolard is already available for viewing.
out
Update:
Miller /Randall debate impressions here.
ABC 11 is sponsoring four congressional debates. The first, between Butterfield and Woolard is already available for viewing.
- Monday, October 4 at 10 a.m. - NC 1st District Congressional Debate: Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D) and Ashley Woolard (R) - airs: 10/24/10 at 12:30 p.m. Click to watch the Butterfield/Woolard debate
- Monday, October 11 at 10 a.m. - NC 2nd District Congressional Debate: Rep. Bob Etheridge (D), Renee Ellmers (R) and Tom Rose (L) - airs: 10/24/10 at 12:00 p.m.
- Monday, October 11 at 2 p.m. - NC 4th District Congressional Debate: Rep. David Price (D) and Dr. B.J. Lawson (R) - airs: 10/24/10 at 11:00 a.m.
- Monday, October 18 at 7 p.m. – NC 13th District Congressional Debate: Rep. Brad Miller (D) and Bill Randall (R) - airs: 10/24/10 at 11:30 a.m.
out
Monday, September 27, 2010
BJ Lawson, Sen. David Price Debate Scheduled...
polifrog
Lawson and Price have scheduled a debate that will take questions from the public before and during the debate.
More information here.
When
October 8
Where
Durham Transportation Center
out
Lawson and Price have scheduled a debate that will take questions from the public before and during the debate.
More information here.
When
October 8
Where
Durham Transportation Center
out
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Rep. Richard Burr - Elaine Marschall Debates Scheduled ...
polifrog
Via Katy'sConservativeCorner
Schedule:
Recent poll: Rasmussen
out
Via Katy'sConservativeCorner
The campaigns of Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) and challenger Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D-North Carolina) have scheduled three debates.
According to a report by WITN television in Eastern North Carolina ( “Little Washington”) ,two debates, sponsored by the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters, did not invite third party Libertarian candidate Michael Beitler.
Schedule:
- October 11 - 7:00 PM (TV)
- October 13 - 8:00 PM (TV) via The League of Women Voters of North Carolina (This debate may prove most insightful as Libertarian Michael Beitler will be in attendance.)
- October 21 - 7:00 PM (TV)
Recent poll: Rasmussen
- Richard Burr ----- 54%
- Elaine Marschall -- 38%
out
Friday, June 4, 2010
(NC-13) Debate 2 - Bernie Reeves Vs. Bill Randall - More Impressions
polifrog
Previous comments on this debate are here.
Some observations only come with time...
Debates between politicians are nothing like debate club debates. They are scored entirely different. School debates are decided on facts, knowledge and points scored while debates between politicians rely more heavily on impressions. Bernie Reeves appears to be unaware of this.
Bernie Reeves has an admirable ability to effortlessly pull information from the recesses of his mind. I envy him for it, as I don't have the ability myself, and further, I find myself at a total loss in impromptu situations. He is at home in those situations and thus has an undeniable edge going into any debate. Why, then, did he go on to loose this debate?
I believe the answer is multi layered.
It begins with a trait that appears to be a strength initially, but in the hands of Reeves' works to his detriment. That trait is his seemingly unlimited well of knowledge. In nearly every answer to almost all questions posed Reeves has a wealth of facts and history that he can not help but put on parade. Perhaps more accurately, he can't help but put himself on parade. Unfortunately, there are no short answers for Reeves.
The result is that he often looses himself in the eddies of his learning as he winds his way through his answers. He does not seem to know how to pare his answers down to....answers. Coherent understandable answers are the root of a win. When Reeves looses himself, he looses his audience.
In the end, attendees are treated to a stampede of facts and history that attempt to answer the question, but in the end only hide Reeves' answers (which are there) in a needless cloud of knowledge.
I imagine it is frustrating to Reeves to loose to Randall, a man who debates in short memorized answers. Unfortunately, from that frustration is born Reeves' irritation with Randall's sometimes pithy answers. Pithy answers have their place, though, as they get to the point with a thud and voters like that.
Memorized answers or, at least, some debate preparation would give much need structure to Reeves' free wheeling impromptu debating style and lend Reeves some control over the lasting impression of the debate.
out
Previous comments on this debate are here.
Some observations only come with time...
Debates between politicians are nothing like debate club debates. They are scored entirely different. School debates are decided on facts, knowledge and points scored while debates between politicians rely more heavily on impressions. Bernie Reeves appears to be unaware of this.
Bernie Reeves has an admirable ability to effortlessly pull information from the recesses of his mind. I envy him for it, as I don't have the ability myself, and further, I find myself at a total loss in impromptu situations. He is at home in those situations and thus has an undeniable edge going into any debate. Why, then, did he go on to loose this debate?
I believe the answer is multi layered.
It begins with a trait that appears to be a strength initially, but in the hands of Reeves' works to his detriment. That trait is his seemingly unlimited well of knowledge. In nearly every answer to almost all questions posed Reeves has a wealth of facts and history that he can not help but put on parade. Perhaps more accurately, he can't help but put himself on parade. Unfortunately, there are no short answers for Reeves.
The result is that he often looses himself in the eddies of his learning as he winds his way through his answers. He does not seem to know how to pare his answers down to....answers. Coherent understandable answers are the root of a win. When Reeves looses himself, he looses his audience.
In the end, attendees are treated to a stampede of facts and history that attempt to answer the question, but in the end only hide Reeves' answers (which are there) in a needless cloud of knowledge.
I imagine it is frustrating to Reeves to loose to Randall, a man who debates in short memorized answers. Unfortunately, from that frustration is born Reeves' irritation with Randall's sometimes pithy answers. Pithy answers have their place, though, as they get to the point with a thud and voters like that.
Memorized answers or, at least, some debate preparation would give much need structure to Reeves' free wheeling impromptu debating style and lend Reeves some control over the lasting impression of the debate.
out
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
(NC-13) Debate 2 - Bernie Reeves vs. Bill Randall -- Impressions
polifrog
First off, thanks go to The League of Women Voters and NBC-17. This was a televised debate and my concerns about living outside the viewing area were not realized thanks to the nearly immediate posting of the debate here by mync.com.
Again in this debate, as the last, Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall agreed on far more than they disagreed. This leaves more room to comment on impressions rather than substance.
Bernie Reeves was feisty from the opening. He attacked Randall on the plagiarism issue with such ferocity that he lost track of his limited number of rebuttals. I suppose his strategy was to throw Randall off his game. He failed at this and was left with little rebuttal time to use later.
Randall responded to the attacks as only one can in his position. He took responsibility for staffing errors and denied an argument by Reeves in which Reeves conflated two issues in an effort to create the appearance that Randall was attempting a cover up.
Although, this exchange burned through Reeves limited rebuttals, Reeves refused to be constrained to simply answering the questions; he is, after all, skilled in verbiage. While answering questions not only did Reeves repeatedly frame Randall's arguments in his own preferred words, he also incorporated rebuttals in his answers. As Randall later pointed out to the moderator, the agreed upon debate rules did not allow for that, but for an establishment politician like Reeves rules don't matter.
And for Reeves, this is a problem. Whether it is a heckler in the crowd, as in the previous debate, or debate rules that impede him in this debate, Reeves visibly rankles. His frustration is so great that he can't even hide it from the cameras. In response he flouted the agreed upon rules of the debate.
As with Pelosi, for Reeves rules are not so much a guide to decorum as a hurdle to clear whether over under or around.
Would Reeves truly have a cleansing effect on congress?
out
First off, thanks go to The League of Women Voters and NBC-17. This was a televised debate and my concerns about living outside the viewing area were not realized thanks to the nearly immediate posting of the debate here by mync.com.
Again in this debate, as the last, Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall agreed on far more than they disagreed. This leaves more room to comment on impressions rather than substance.
Bernie Reeves was feisty from the opening. He attacked Randall on the plagiarism issue with such ferocity that he lost track of his limited number of rebuttals. I suppose his strategy was to throw Randall off his game. He failed at this and was left with little rebuttal time to use later.
Randall responded to the attacks as only one can in his position. He took responsibility for staffing errors and denied an argument by Reeves in which Reeves conflated two issues in an effort to create the appearance that Randall was attempting a cover up.
Although, this exchange burned through Reeves limited rebuttals, Reeves refused to be constrained to simply answering the questions; he is, after all, skilled in verbiage. While answering questions not only did Reeves repeatedly frame Randall's arguments in his own preferred words, he also incorporated rebuttals in his answers. As Randall later pointed out to the moderator, the agreed upon debate rules did not allow for that, but for an establishment politician like Reeves rules don't matter.
And for Reeves, this is a problem. Whether it is a heckler in the crowd, as in the previous debate, or debate rules that impede him in this debate, Reeves visibly rankles. His frustration is so great that he can't even hide it from the cameras. In response he flouted the agreed upon rules of the debate.
As with Pelosi, for Reeves rules are not so much a guide to decorum as a hurdle to clear whether over under or around.
Would Reeves truly have a cleansing effect on congress?
out
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Debate 2 -- Bernie Reeves vs. Bill Randall (NC-13)
polifrog
Debate impressions posted here.
This is to be a televised debate by NBC-17 in conjunction with the League of Women Voters.
When...........................June 2, 2010 from 12:00PM to 1:00PM
Length.........................1 hour
On line version.............http://www.mync.com/
Submit Questions to.....myvote@wncn.com
It appears that residents of the city of Raleigh have an advantage over those in the rest of district NC-13, in that the broadcaster does not cover the entire area.
However, the debate will be posted online here.(mync.com)
Remember to vote on June, 22.
Vote date edited.
out
Debate impressions posted here.
This is to be a televised debate by NBC-17 in conjunction with the League of Women Voters.
When...........................June 2, 2010 from 12:00PM to 1:00PM
Length.........................1 hour
On line version.............http://www.mync.com/
Submit Questions to.....myvote@wncn.com
It appears that residents of the city of Raleigh have an advantage over those in the rest of district NC-13, in that the broadcaster does not cover the entire area.
However, the debate will be posted online here.(mync.com)
Remember to vote on June, 22.
Vote date edited.
out
Friday, May 14, 2010
Runoff Debate Between Bill Randall and Bernie Reeves for Brad Miller's Seat NC-13
polifrog
My son took these videos of the closing remarks by both Bill Randall and Bernie Reeves at their runoff debate on May 13, 2010.
Debate Impressions Here.
Bill Randall:
Bernie Reeves:
Two good men to choose from.
Better quality video of the debate via ubetcha13 is slowly making its way to youtube....
Part 1:
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
out
My son took these videos of the closing remarks by both Bill Randall and Bernie Reeves at their runoff debate on May 13, 2010.
Debate Impressions Here.
Bill Randall:
Bernie Reeves:
Two good men to choose from.
Better quality video of the debate via ubetcha13 is slowly making its way to youtube....
Part 1:
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
out
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Randall / Reeves Debate -- NC-13 -- Impressions
polifrog
Tonight I met both Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall. They are competing for the seat (NC-13) currently held by Brad Miller.The photos were taken by my son Trey.
Some quick impressions.
Bernie Reeves has both a depth and mastery of the issues that I was previously unaware of. Add to that his smooth delivery and comfort in the public eye while on stage and what we have in Bernie Reeves is the makings of an excellent candidate. In only one instance did Reeves make a misstep outside his normal polish. He allowed a flash of what I, at first, deemed anger, but later feel was frustration, slip past him.
Unfortunately I feel I should speak to that issue. Reeves had a quibble with the time Bill Randall had taken to answer a question and also that Bill Randell had delivered closing statements in addition to his answer to the original question. The moment of frustration revealed itself when a Randall supporter called Reeves a cry baby or something to that effect. The person was across the room from me so the comment was indistinct. Reeves observed aloud that he must be in a room full of Randall supporters. True or not, that was the moment his frustration flared. I heard, at least one case of hushed shock. Unfortunate. It occurred to me that at that moment Reeves may have been considering a possible loss to Randall. Perhaps he simply forgot he was on camera. (Skip to the 2:00 mark through the 4:50mark in the video below.)
Bill Randall was the third person my son and I met at the event. He was greeting people at the door and he even gave my son a fist bump. Cool. My son will remember that. Bill Randall, like Reeves, is an excellent speaker. This is true, though, only when he feels he fully understands the material he is speaking to. There were, unfortunately, many times when Randall was outclassed in comparison to Reeves if one measured the differences between the two solely in terms of depth of knowledge. Randall, though, showed in each answer that he understood the fundamental principles upon which to reach the right conclusion. I saw no apparent missteps by Randall with the exception of some moderate distraction between questions.
In the end the two candidates agreed far more than they disagreed. Not a surprise. And on points scored Reeves came away with a victory.
Reeves is the more polished more establishment candidate with established supporters and is a formidable and impressive debater with knowledge on tap. Unfortunately it is that plethora of knowledge that frightens me with Reeves. He reminds me of long time representatives with a wealth of experience that, invariably, tends to lead those representatives astray. Knowledge and its mastery is not an anchor from which leadership is reliably sourced and those who choose to lead from it get lost in the greys of that knowledge and too often drift from their core beliefs.
This expressed itself in a question on oil drilling and the impact the BP oil spill has on the two candidates position on drilling. Reeves answered that he had changed his opinion and could no longer support drilling. To me he seemed to loose his anchor, and instead gave a politically expedient answer.
By comparison, Randall held strong to his conviction and expressed that we should learn from the accident and avoid repeating it in the future with the understanding that there is currently no future without oil. An answer based on conviction and deft.
In the past I would have supported Reeves without a second thought, but I feel burned by establishment conservatives. Unfortunately Reeves feels very establishment and perhaps too easily set drifting between compelling arguments.
I want conviction, a Plymouth Rock.
News 14 report here.
out
Tonight I met both Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall. They are competing for the seat (NC-13) currently held by Brad Miller.The photos were taken by my son Trey.Some quick impressions.
Bernie Reeves has both a depth and mastery of the issues that I was previously unaware of. Add to that his smooth delivery and comfort in the public eye while on stage and what we have in Bernie Reeves is the makings of an excellent candidate. In only one instance did Reeves make a misstep outside his normal polish. He allowed a flash of what I, at first, deemed anger, but later feel was frustration, slip past him.
Unfortunately I feel I should speak to that issue. Reeves had a quibble with the time Bill Randall had taken to answer a question and also that Bill Randell had delivered closing statements in addition to his answer to the original question. The moment of frustration revealed itself when a Randall supporter called Reeves a cry baby or something to that effect. The person was across the room from me so the comment was indistinct. Reeves observed aloud that he must be in a room full of Randall supporters. True or not, that was the moment his frustration flared. I heard, at least one case of hushed shock. Unfortunate. It occurred to me that at that moment Reeves may have been considering a possible loss to Randall. Perhaps he simply forgot he was on camera. (Skip to the 2:00 mark through the 4:50mark in the video below.)
Bill Randall was the third person my son and I met at the event. He was greeting people at the door and he even gave my son a fist bump. Cool. My son will remember that. Bill Randall, like Reeves, is an excellent speaker. This is true, though, only when he feels he fully understands the material he is speaking to. There were, unfortunately, many times when Randall was outclassed in comparison to Reeves if one measured the differences between the two solely in terms of depth of knowledge. Randall, though, showed in each answer that he understood the fundamental principles upon which to reach the right conclusion. I saw no apparent missteps by Randall with the exception of some moderate distraction between questions.
In the end the two candidates agreed far more than they disagreed. Not a surprise. And on points scored Reeves came away with a victory.
Reeves is the more polished more establishment candidate with established supporters and is a formidable and impressive debater with knowledge on tap. Unfortunately it is that plethora of knowledge that frightens me with Reeves. He reminds me of long time representatives with a wealth of experience that, invariably, tends to lead those representatives astray. Knowledge and its mastery is not an anchor from which leadership is reliably sourced and those who choose to lead from it get lost in the greys of that knowledge and too often drift from their core beliefs.
This expressed itself in a question on oil drilling and the impact the BP oil spill has on the two candidates position on drilling. Reeves answered that he had changed his opinion and could no longer support drilling. To me he seemed to loose his anchor, and instead gave a politically expedient answer.
By comparison, Randall held strong to his conviction and expressed that we should learn from the accident and avoid repeating it in the future with the understanding that there is currently no future without oil. An answer based on conviction and deft.
In the past I would have supported Reeves without a second thought, but I feel burned by establishment conservatives. Unfortunately Reeves feels very establishment and perhaps too easily set drifting between compelling arguments.
I want conviction, a Plymouth Rock.
News 14 report here.
out
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Bill Randall and Bernie Reeves to Debate Tomorrow (Thursday)
polifrog
Bill Randall and Bernie Reeves are scheduled to debate Thursday night.
More information here.
I intend to attend with my son. He is 11 and this should prove to be an excellent learning experience for him.
---If there is an internet connection available polifrog will post live comments on polifrog. I hesitate to call this live blogging, though. If there is no internet connection available there will be no posts during the debate.
---If I find that there is a link with live streaming of the event it will be posted.
---I will definitely post video and comments that night and into the small hours of the next morning.
out
Bill Randall and Bernie Reeves are scheduled to debate Thursday night.
More information here.
I intend to attend with my son. He is 11 and this should prove to be an excellent learning experience for him.
---If there is an internet connection available polifrog will post live comments on polifrog. I hesitate to call this live blogging, though. If there is no internet connection available there will be no posts during the debate.
---If I find that there is a link with live streaming of the event it will be posted.
---I will definitely post video and comments that night and into the small hours of the next morning.
out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
