The newspapers asked for it. The newspapers are getting it.
Some of the most amusing writing that's been done these days appears from readers who are reacting to stories in papers around the nation.
Including right here in Des Moines.
The Register is serving as some sort of test market for the parent Gannett Co. when it comes to asking for reader comments to stories.
I wonder if the local paper had any idea what it was getting into.
Business is brisk, let's put it that way.
If readers aren't responding to some kind of sports column regarding an Iowa or Iowa State controversy, they're hammering away at editor Carolyn Washburn for how she screwed up the presidential debates that were held here last week.
After being criticized by Washington columnists for her looks and for how poorly she handled the debates, the readers took over on the Register's website.
Readers going by such phony Internet names as "StuntDonkey," "StinkyJenkins" and "furiousatwashburn" let Washburn have it after she tried to explain why she did the dumb things she did during the debates.
After what a number of these folks wrote, I'd say it's time for Washburn to take a long vacation in a warm place.
Hey, listen, that's not as bad as what some of the readers said. They think she should quit or be fired.
Anyway, here's a sampling of what people wrote. Most of it ain't pretty:Jurnei wrote:Please disclose The Des Moines Register's connection with the Hillary Clinton campaign. DMR is owned by Gannett Company, Inc. On the board of Gannett sits Donna Shalala, former US Secretary of Health and Human Services, who was appointed and served under Bill Clinton throughout his presidency. That may have been the longest individual serving in that position. Shalala was also appointed Designated Survivor during the State of the Union. This means if the Clinton top administration were wiped out by attack, Shalala would step into power. It appears Shalala wields a big stick and corporate favor proved strong in both Gannett and The Des Moines Register excluding Democratic candidates from the debate, such as Dennis Kucinich, and ultimately endorsing Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency. In all fairness to Iowans, they should know that the debates were slanted to bring home the Register's candidate.
greensman wrote:"We like talk on issues" - Washburn But yet you left out the top 2 issues of the current campaign(atleast on the GOP side). What a joke. Oh and like others have said - YOU aren't the story Washburn and should never have been the story but your piss poor performance and your obvious bias made you the story. What a discrace on a national stage. We expected better from you even with the historical bias of the Ragister.
jedijd wrote:Washburn's performance in both debates -- Rep and Dem -- alternated between mindnumbingly boring and mean. Who the hell cares about Chris Dodd's father's ancient pecadillos? What on Earth does this kind of trivia have do with the country's need to elect the best president possible, next year? With such a towering intellectual at the head of the state's biggest newspaper, no wonder that we only hear about Iowa once every four years!
StuntDonkey wrote:I agree MarkinAustin, Biden has clearly shown why he should not only get the DMR endorsement but should be the candidate in the general. Experience, wisdom, knowledge and a proven track record far better than any of the 'top tier' candidates. Biden '08
johnse wrote:Wow you can't endorse John Edwards because he would take on the corporations and drug companies so instead you go with Clinton who is willing to allow them their continued ways and is not as confrontational as John Edwards who wants them to obey the laws. You say Clinton is the best one to end the war who has enabled Bush now on Iran and has already told us all how long she is going to keep the troops in Iraq and she also has basically always supported this war. Your endorsement is a hard one to figure out. Maybe the staff had dinner and drinks tool many times with Clinton.
EricNelson wrote:The internet remarks Washburn reports, though accurate, are cruel and somewhat beside the point. The story is not about you, dear. And that was the problem with the Republican debate. A good moderator is objective and impartial. You should not be able to figure out where she stands, or who she favors. In this, Washburn is an abject failure. She became some of the story, and judging from her article, she thinks she's the story. Add to that the expression that she could not get the Republicans to talk about global warming, and you see she is a liar as well as a failure. The hand-raising stunt without giving the chance for the candidates to respond did make for a terrific Fred! moment, though, so there was definitely something to cheer about. So instead of being the story, she was the unidentified player in blue (with a big caboose?) in a Michael Jordan poster shot.
zeboshoes wrote:The only controversy about your endorsement is that you are now a whole lot more insignificant than you were before. What an opportunity you wasted. The endorsement reads like a Clinton shill. Endorsing anyone else would have been believable; now we know that this came because of too many dinners and drinks with the Clintons.
CJSimones wrote:Jurnei (on page 4): When you used the Merriam Webster definition of "slew," you used the word "throng," and tired as I was, I overlooked the "r." Now I have a mental image of Ms. Washburn in a thong and I'm busy clawing my eyes out. Although the fault is mine for misreading your comment, you should be more careful lest others like me suffer the same horrid fate.
CJSimones wrote:If the DMR wants to salvage ANY credibility, it must immediately publish a mea culpa and agree never, NEVER allow this horrible person to EVER moderate a televised debate again. Does anyone else think it ridiculous (and embarrasing) to reduce selecting the leader of the free world to fifteen-second answers to the most banal questions imagineable? I went to Catholic school, and I can state unequivocally that Sister Dorinda had more charisma and color than Nurse Ratched.
StuntDonkey wrote:Extensive and substantial talk on issues. That would be Joe Biden. Biden '08
oxfordden wrote:I'm an Independent voter from Philadelphia, PA. I watched both debates. Much of the criticism that I'm reading about is justified. Ms. Washburn did a fine job gaining national attention. Perhaps that was her intent. The bias was obvious, blatant, and embarrassing. What I find fascinating is that when the bias become so overt - people see through the rhetoric and vote in opposition to the planned coercion. So, in that regard, the deceivers usually lose.
JonathanWatts wrote:Amazing that in one editorial the author uses the self-important �I� and �me� over twenty times in half that many self-constructed �paragraphs�. Moreover, the �I� and �me� individual, whomever that might be, uses the royal �we� and �us� just as much. There is no greater cop-out than that self-important �we� when writing one's own opinions. A journalism wannabe figures that out long before their first college course. In reading all the self-referential �I�s and �we�s and �they�s there is a loose reminder of a line from Shakespeare�s grossly overlooked Coriolanus: Hear you this Triton of the minnows? mark you His absolute 'shall'? In this case "His" absolute shall should have been "Her"s. Washburn�s �shalls� are absolute.....absolutely about her. Or, as she might prefer �HERSELF� (the capitals are mine). For the record, here's a link to that Shakespeare http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=coriolanus
MarkInAustin wrote:Ms. Washburn: I remember when Eisenhower had a cordial relationship with Rayburn and Johnson. Biden, Dodd, and McCain have long histories of working across party lines. Obama has worked well with Republicans in his term as a Senator and Clinton has had some success in this regard, too. Huckabee worked well with a Democratic Legislature in Arkansas. Richardson is not a polarizing figure. I count Edwards, Clinton, and Giuliani, as saying a major issue facing us is ourselves, in the guise of "dreaded conservatives" or "dreaded liberals�. Biden, Dodd, and McCain know foreign policy. Richardson has disappointed here. McCain, Paul, Biden, and Dodd, and Obama at the state level, have favored open and transparent government. Giuliani and Clinton seem cloaked in veils of secrecy. Devotion to transparency of government, a rational bipartisan foreign policy, and character are measures we should require of our next President. Please endorse Sen. Biden and/or Sen. McCain.
JonathanWatts wrote:Washburn is further proof that inconsequential, unattractive fat chicks have too much undue influence on the election process. Rosie O'Donell, Monica Lewinsky, and probably Hillary herself are chubsters that need ignoring while the election process continues. Who is Kathy Bates voting for? Who gives a damn! :) The one hefty woman who has a genuine right to influence events is Oprah, whose class and self-earned success have won her the right of altering public opinion. I'm not interested in voting for Obama, but I admire his winning Oprah's endorsement. Hey Washburn - you're no Oprah.
OaksDen wrote:You were, without doubt, one of the least talented moderators I have ever had the misfortune to listen to. This mealy-mouthed attempt to justify your ineptness fails as badly as did your attempt to present the candidates for public scrutiny.
WesternHawk wrote:Carolyn Washburn is a perfect example of just how tolerant Iowans can be.
Chuckcasual wrote:Ms Washburn said: '' But we decided to pose questions that hadn't been debated to death. You want stump speeches? Ask about Iraq or immigration again.'' What bosh; you mean you honestly couldn't come up with one single question that might have held the candidates feet to the fire on these two topics. How about this one for the Dems: 'Since it's becoming obvious things are going much better in Iraq, how are you going to adjust your campaign strategy to fit?' And for the GOPers: 'Would you distinquish between illegal and legal immigrants when determining policy as President?' Come to think of it, that one would have worked pretty well for both parties but then, the Register really doesn't like that little differentiation does it?
KennChem wrote:He snorted massive amounts of cocaine ... He drank like a fish...He dodged the draft....He went awol from the Alabama Air National Guard...His friends knew him as an alcoholic womanizer with a bad temper....a complete failure at business until his wealthy friends bailed him out. Yet within a few short years he was elected Governor of Texas, and quickly catapulted into the White House, in spite of losing the popular vote. He was re-elected with last minute help from Osama Bin Laden, in spite of high disapproval ratings. He still couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag .....and yet he's declared an endless war and instituted some of the most radical political changes in American history ....
StuntDonkey wrote:'We like talk on issues'. That would be Joe Biden, clear and articulate on the issues. Biden '08
Moneyrunner wrote:Washburn asks the eternal question: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
StinkyJenkins wrote:
Somebody might want to tell Mr. Hollingsworth to keep an eye on his wife. Bill Clinton is looking for her and he has one final "Point" to make to her. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/us/politics/15register.html?hp
HITLERY wrote:Heil Clintler! Thank you, Carolyn, for making a "Pig In A Pantsuit" like myself look downright "cigar-able" compared to you. I expect to see an endorsement for me in a future edition of your newspaper. I haven't spent the past year giving puff pieces to Jennifer Jacobs for nothing, you know. Carolyn, you did a wonderful job not allowing the most important and popular topics in this campaign from being talked about. Nobody want to hear about how the surge is successful. And nobody wants to debate illegals, especially because I might have to defend my decision to be for driver's licenses and voter registration cards for illegals before I was against it. I certainly don't want to answer that question from a pro-illegal newspaper like the Des Moines Register. So thank you, Carolyn, for blocking those questions. You're built kind of like a Defensive Back, so "if the Caboose fits"........ HEIL CLINTER!
JDLChicago wrote:What is Fat Bottom Girls by Queen?
StinkyJenkins wrote:
After they endorse Hillary.....that is.....
StinkyJenkins wrote:
Tomorrow when we wake up to read Provda East (Des Moines Register), Carolyn Washburn and the other gals on the Editorial Staff will gleefully be singing Freddie Mercury's revenge! You all know the song and it sure isnt "We are the Champions" or "We will rock you."
iowaindie wrote:
How do people get as broken as you? Seriously, how can you be so blind to your own failings? When DesCartes said "The unexamined life is not worth living" he didn't mean EVERYONE ELSE, honey. Take a good, probing look at what a laughingstock you have become and make some changes within yourself. You have become a footnote in the history of the inept for all eternity, thanks to the internet. What a disgrace you are.
JDLChicago wrote:Best line in here: "And now, on to whatever controversy comes with our endorsement!" No one will care about your endorsements. People only care about endorsements from credible newspapers. Based on your performance in the debate, and the fact that you lead this newspaper, you have given people enough reason to ignore any endorsement you make. A controversy would come if people actually thought you are credible. Also, stop with this false sense of importance. If you would have had some contrition about your performance, maybe people would not be leaving such negative comments. It was clear that the setting outmatched you, and people would be willing to understand, if you were at least honest about your performance and admit that you did a bad job and misrepresented the people of Iowa and your newspaper to the entire country. You may like to think that this was a debate for Iowa, but newsflash, the whole nation was watching.
JDLChicago wrote:Honestly, how were the debates beneficial? I cannot believe that Iowans don't want to hear about Iraq and immigration. Ms. Washburn, do not mistake thoughtful questions with questions that are long, contrived and hard to follow. There were times when you asked so many compound questions that it essentially gave free reign to the candidate to answer however he pleased. Yet you were too dense to realize this, and, this is when you came off real school marmish, you badgered them to answer the question and stay on topic. What is your problem? Iowans, please find a way to influence this paper in getting rid of her
CycloneD wrote:
Ms. Washburn should resign. The Register is in serious trouble and she is the public face of an institution she has run into the ground. BTW: with the "Nurse Ratched" comment, as the old saying goes, " if the shoe fits..."
ToddonCapeCod wrote:
Washburn, use your brains, would you? "Chose not to talk about it"??????????? Fred Thompon only asked you to talk about it, and you told him No, just raise your hand. So who's the dunderhead, hmmmmm?
12/15/2007 1:03:15 PM
ToddonCapeCod wrote:
Nope. No left-wing bias here! Idiot
commonpatriot wrote:Caroyln, you had a horse in this race and you should have just said it from the begining. You orchestrated a 2 night play where you set up the actors on the first night to fail and the next night to shine. I watched both debates. You acted like a prison guard in the first one and "softball" Larry King in the second. In this very article, you conveniently plucked out the gems from the democrats and the negative from the republicans that you despise. It is your job to provide an atmosphere where there is a healthy exchange on both sides and not a predisposition to one side because of favoritism. I wonder if this paper will support a Democrat, duhhhh? If you moderate a debate, just be honest. Tell the people that you are supporting a democrat no matter what is said throughout the debates and campaign and you can protect the integrity that you "supposedly" have as a journalist and editor of a major metropolitan newspaper.
Artyman wrote:You say you now have thicker skin...I will be watching to see if that new found position of yours has any trickle down effect on your writers.
kathinor wrote:Ms. Washburn: I was glad to watch a dignified debate, instead of the dog and pony shows we have been getting in some of the other debates. I thought on the whole the candidates were serious about presenting themselves, not attacking others, although I thought Hillary Clinton's remark to you about 'raising hands' was snide, and that her derisive laughter and 'I wanna hear this' comment was snider still, and disrespectful both to the question and to Senator Obama. Thank you for not baiting candidates against each other, and for asking thoughtful and thoughtprovoking questions.
JDLChicago wrote:This article cannot be serious. Did she watch her performance? It was utterly terrible in both debates. She should be fired. She shows the typical print journalist attitude...holier than thou...I shall make the decisions about how people should get the news... Snappier gentlelady, you should have already retired, have been fired, or quit.
dragonovich wrote:
Washburn, you are a Democrat shill. Your forum, technique and questions were intended to marginalize the Republican candidates. The American public sees through your phony and contrived debate. I remember when the Register's editorial staff had standards. Its sad to see such a great newspaper in decline
furiousatwashburn wrote:
"So how did it happen? �We have to have criteria,� Patterson Plank told me. �It�s always easy after the fact to say should we have tweaked them here or there, but reading them up front, they looked like very solid criteria, and we still believe that they are.� The criteria for admission to the debate, according to the Register, were that a candidate must have filed papers with the Federal Election Commission; that he must have publicly announced his candidacy; that he have a campaign office in Iowa as of October 1; that he have at least one full-time paid staff member in Iowa; and that he score at least one percent support in the Register�s October poll.
furiousatwashburn wrote:"The Cosmic Keyes Campaign By his own count, Keyes has a total of 49 � yes, 49 � committed supporters in Iowa. But a candidacy is just a state of mind, isn�t it? By Byron York Des Moines, Iowa � After the Des Moines Register Republican presidential debate ended here Wednesday afternoon, Susan Patterson Plank, the paper�s vice president of marketing, was a little defensive. Reporters wanted to know how Alan Keyes, the former ambassador running a nearly nonexistent campaign, qualified for the debate. Standing beside the established Republican candidates on the stage at the Iowa Public Television headquarters, Keyes used his considerable rhetorical skills to wander all over the lot, deliver sermons, avoid questions, grow increasingly irritable, and in general lead viewers to ask what in the hell he was doing on stage.
furiousatwashburn wrote:Journalistic Negligence from here on synonymous with W A S H B U R N: "Chose not to talk about it!?! Not only did one Republican ask to talk about it, as opposed to raising his hand, Washburn wouldn't let them talk about anything other than what she had pre-scripted in her mind. From the transcript: see rest of pertinent part below the fold. Everyone there that was permitted to, talked about it until she changed the subject. She also defends inviting Keyes and not Kucinich using criteria that's been pretty much debunked."... �I don�t define those events as you do. And I don�t think you have any right whatsoever to establish yourselves as the arbiter of what constitutes an event. I will do that in a way that reflects the best needs and purposes of the people who are working with me. Because as I see it, every time somebody comes forward and takes the pledge, that�s an Iowa event.� That puts Keyes at 49 and counting."
phdsvp wrote:The fact that you did such a horrific job at moderating that the Iowa Republican Party may hold another debate before the caucuses in order to discuss...um...the issues...should tell you how awful it was. Anyone with self-respect would have resigned already.
ToddonCapeCod wrote:
Nope. No left-wing bias here! Idiot
commonpatriot wrote:Caroyln, you had a horse in this race and you should have just said it from the begining. You orchestrated a 2 night play where you set up the actors on the first night to fail and the next night to shine. I watched both debates. You acted like a prison guard in the first one and "softball" Larry King in the second. In this very article, you conveniently plucked out the gems from the democrats and the negative from the republicans that you despise. It is your job to provide an atmosphere where there is a healthy exchange on both sides and not a predisposition to one side because of favoritism. I wonder if this paper will support a Democrat, duhhhh? If you moderate a debate, just be honest. Tell the people that you are supporting a democrat no matter what is said throughout the debates and campaign and you can protect the integrity that you "supposedly" have as a journalist and editor of a major metropolitan newspaper.
Artyman wrote:You say you now have thicker skin...I will be watching to see if that new found position of yours has any trickle down effect on your writers.
kathinor wrote:
Ms. Washburn: I was glad to watch a dignified debate, instead of the dog and pony shows we have been getting in some of the other debates. I thought on the whole the candidates were serious about presenting themselves, not attacking others, although I thought Hillary Clinton's remark to you about 'raising hands' was snide, and that her derisive laughter and 'I wanna hear this' comment was snider still, and disrespectful both to the question and to Senator Obama. Thank you for not baiting candidates against each other, and for asking thoughtful and thoughtprovoking questions.
JDLChicago wrote:
This article cannot be serious. Did she watch her performance? It was utterly terrible in both debates. She should be fired. She shows the typical print journalist attitude...holier than thou...I shall make the decisions about how people should get the news... Snappier gentlelady, you should have already retired, have been fired, or quit.
dragonovich wrote:
Washburn, you are a Democrat shill. Your forum, technique and questions were intended to marginalize the Republican candidates. The American public sees through your phony and contrived debate. I remember when the Register's editorial staff had standards. Its sad to see such a great newspaper in decline.
furiousatwashburn wrote:
"So how did it happen? �We have to have criteria,� Patterson Plank told me. �It�s always easy after the fact to say should we have tweaked them here or there, but reading them up front, they looked like very solid criteria, and we still believe that they are.� The criteria for admission to the debate, according to the Register, were that a candidate must have filed papers with the Federal Election Commission; that he must have publicly announced his candidacy; that he have a campaign office in Iowa as of October 1; that he have at least one full-time paid staff member in Iowa; and that he score at least one percent support in the Register�s October poll.
furiousatwashburn wrote:"The Cosmic Keyes Campaign By his own count, Keyes has a total of 49 � yes, 49 � committed supporters in Iowa. But a candidacy is just a state of mind, isn�t it? By Byron York Des Moines, Iowa � After the Des Moines Register Republican presidential debate ended here Wednesday afternoon, Susan Patterson Plank, the paper�s vice president of marketing, was a little defensive. Reporters wanted to know how Alan Keyes, the former ambassador running a nearly nonexistent campaign, qualified for the debate. Standing beside the established Republican candidates on the stage at the Iowa Public Television headquarters, Keyes used his considerable rhetorical skills to wander all over the lot, deliver sermons, avoid questions, grow increasingly irritable, and in general lead viewers to ask what in the hell he was doing on stage.
furiousatwashburn wrote:
Journalistic Negligence from here on synonymous with W A S H B U R N: "Chose not to talk about it!?! Not only did one Republican ask to talk about it, as opposed to raising his hand, Washburn wouldn't let them talk about anything other than what she had pre-scripted in her mind. From the transcript: see rest of pertinent part below the fold. Everyone there that was permitted to, talked about it until she changed the subject. She also defends inviting Keyes and not Kucinich using criteria that's been pretty much debunked."... �I don�t define those events as you do. And I don�t think you have any right whatsoever to establish yourselves as the arbiter of what constitutes an event. I will do that in a way that reflects the best needs and purposes of the people who are working with me. Because as I see it, every time somebody comes forward and takes the pledge, that�s an Iowa event.� That puts Keyes at 49 and counting."
phdsvp wrote:
The fact that you did such a horrific job at moderating that the Iowa Republican Party may hold another debate before the caucuses in order to discuss...um...the issues...should tell you how awful it was. Anyone with self-respect would have resigned already.
askantik wrote:
Where was Dennis Kucinich? I'll say it again, where the HELL was DENNIS KUCINICH? You can't honestly think highly of yourself after your little escapade.
Tobias2012 wrote:Washburn, this current article demonstrates that you are utterly clueless to how inappropriate and unprofessional your so-called performance as a moderator for the Republicans debate was. What bubble to you live in? You are considered a laughingstock throughout the country and should be reprimanded for your pathetic attempts to control the so-called debate, for you have disgraced the good people of Iowa by your soulless antics. In this article, you state that you wanted the Republicans to debate the issue of Global warming, don't you recall you gave them an option of "raise your hand if" and then when they wanted to talk about said issue you would not allow them. If the Des Moines Register ever hopes to recover any type of national respect you should be renoved from your position for your arrogance and self-importance that was exposed to millions via the internet and the national pundits.
Bedrock wrote:
You have such a deep anti-republican feelings (more evident now that I have read the poor-me piece above) and yet you have somehow deluded yourself into thinking that you were fair as a debate moderator. Asking for a show of hands is NOT tackling global warming, nor is it proper for a debate. That you "feel proud" tells me only that you lack introspection. The difference between your debate and the CNN You-tube debate? Your debate had only ONE liberal ringer asking questions.
StinkyJenkins wrote:
Do you feel better about yourself now Carolyn Washburn? I noticed you didnt mention much about your bias and blunder in the Republican debate, only the criticism you recieved. The good news for your career is that you are known around the World as the Face, or as you put it, the CABOOSE of the Des Moines Register. In Liberal media circles, your value has probably gone through the roof. I suspect you will soon get offers from CNN or the New York Times. Maybe you will win a Pulitzer or a Grammy for tripping up the Republicans. Sadly, many nationwide think you represent Iowans. That is the painful part. Your inhospitality, disrespect, bias and unprofessionalism does nothing to promote our State. You set us back a few years with that debate.
Jurnei wrote:
I noticed the difference in suggested number of responses to your effort by �thousands� of callers raging about the exclusion of Kucinich in comparison to the �slew of e-mails� you claim you received thanking you for a civil discussion. I find that interesting. Again quoting the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for slew as �army, host, throng�, do you mean that truly an army of Iowans emailed you, to, of all meaningless things, thank you for a �civil discussion�? Ms. Washburn, I just had to click my heels to return back from OZ, but truly I am struggling with your statement. I can�t help but state that I strongly believe that you, the Des Moines Register, Gannett Company, and your sponsors, are very dishonest people. It is now up to the American people to determine who those sponsors are, and proceed accordingly to stop this from ever happening again in America. (please read backwards from my first post)
Jurnei wrote:
This country is in serious trouble. I would think that was behind the "thousands" of callers desperate for some kind of hope in a democracy that is damaged because of sleezy politics, corporate interests, and irresponsible media. While I do not condone the language that must have targeted both your person and the DMR, I can certainly understand it and forgive. Families are loosing their offspring in a "quagmire" in Iraq, to quote Vice President Dick Cheney�s statement in 1994; our disabled and frequently suicidal veterans return home immediately forgotten by the VA who affords little assistance; the lending industry has been allowed to rape the finances of struggling families at a time when it is difficult to pay for a tank of gas; and the future of this planet is being ignored by the current administration while the rest of the world takes the lead and hates us for our excess. Does the choice of excluding any candidate that may have the ability to follow a committed course make sense
Jurnei wrote:
As far as the debate being for Iowans, I think they deserve better than that. Not to mention that I am fully certain you are aware that the rest of the world was watching for hope as well. Finally, you mention "And then there were the thousands of e-mails and calls raging at us for including Ambassador Alan Keyes and not inviting Congressman Dennis Kucinich". Thousands you say? Was it "Iowa nice", as you put it, �ruling the day�?
Jurnei wrote:In your comment, "No fights broke out. No one called anyone a name", it appears you are referring to a middle school debate. Have you ever honestly seen presidential candidates become out of control with argument or come to fists at a debate? Wouldn't that be telling information for the public if they did? Or did it have to do with protecting certain candidates and your personal discomfort with meaningful debate? For that matter what is a debate? Merriam-Webster defines a debate as "a contention by words or argument". Did Iowa hold a Debate or was it a sterilized snap shot of the face The Des Moines Register and Gannett Company would like to endorse? You are correct, there was no argument; however I don't think there was a debate either.
Jurnei wrote:In your comment, "No fights broke out. No one called anyone a name", it appears you are referring to a middle school debate. Have you ever honestly seen presidential candidates become out of control with argument or come to fists at a debate? Wouldn't that be telling information for the public if they did? Or did it have to do with protecting certain candidates and your personal discomfort with meaningful debate? For that matter what is a debate? Merriam-Webster defines a debate as "a contention by words or argument". Did Iowa hold a Debate or was it a sterilized snap shot of the face The Des Moines Register and Gannett Company would like to endorse? You are correct, there was no argument; however I don't think there was a debate either.
Jurnei wrote:I am in strong disagreement with your perspective of the debate. As I have closely watched TV news over the last several days, as well as at my computer, I would have to say I haven't found one comment in support of your claims. From my point of view, the candidates might as well have read their platforms. I guess this was your aim in stating "the Democratic candidates have debated 16 times". Then why debate again? You were given quite firm personally direct feedback on numerous occasions Alan Keyes. Does he have an office in Iowa that he has used for one year of campaigning? Fred Thompson stood his ground in his refusal to raise his hand as if in grade school. That served as a moment of comic relief in contrast to the visually obvious frustration of the candidates trying to say anything of individual while you constantly interrupted. You insisted that Thompson couldn't speak, yet you turned the response to another candidate who was afforded a lengthy reply.
