Three hours before the first presidential “debate” debacle kicked off, as I was blithely sautéing a batch of mushrooms, my kitchen sink inexplicably plunged—with a loud thunk—to the bottom of the cabinet beneath it. Slightly more than a year earlier, the pricey stainless steel sink had been one of the final finishes to a long overdue, professional kitchen renovation. But, somehow, over the course of 12 months, it had worked its way loose from its moorings.

Then I witnessed a much worse disaster: Donald Trump’s off-the-rails performance at the presidential debate. He was unhinged, out of control, unmoored, unglued, unbolted. Just like my kitchen sink. But with vastly more dangerous consequences.

Minutes after the sink sank, I put in a desperate call to the kitchen renovators. They were shocked. This doesn’t happen, they said. We’ll be out to fix it in the morning, they promised. And they were. When they arrived and assessed the situation, they blamed the problem on the original installers, who, they said, didn’t seem to know what they were doing and did a half-assed job.

Again, I was struck by the parallel with Donald Trump’s presidency. Voters apparently didn’t know what they were doing when they installed him. And he has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn’t know what he is doing as the “leader of the free world.” Also, he’s not a half-ass, he’s the full Monty.  (One aspect of this comparison that doesn’t work is that, unlike the minority of the American electorate who voted for Trump, I didn’t buy a product that was obviously damaged goods from the get-go.)

The repair squad showed up as promised, their truck stocked with every tool, part, and adhesive product they needed to re-instate my sink to its proper condition. It took them a while to figure out what had happened (the sink had not been correctly braced). And they had to jerry-rig a solution (shoring up the sink with wooden supports). But they got the job done, and I feel  confident that my sink is more stable than it was before.

And despite the emotional hangover I was suffering post-debate, I saw another, convenient metaphorical connection. With Donald Trump as America’s know-nothing, incompetent contractor-in-chief, the underpinnings of our democracy are coming undone, falling apart at the seams.

Can Joe Biden do for American democracy what the repair guys did for my kitchen? I hope so. But he damage is already deep. Trump and his cohort of greedy, corrupt, and anti-democracy cronies have subverted our agencies, our institutions, our traditions and even our hopes and expectations. It’s going to take a lot of work, and more than a metaphorical morning, to shore us back up and restore stability. Even if  we manage to elect Biden, take back the Senate, and keep the House majority, we’re going to need a truckload of good ideas and willing workers. We’ll have to throw everything at the job—including the kitchen sink.

The post My kitchen sink: A 2020 Election Metaphor appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The 2020 Democratic pre-primary debates are about to begin, and I think they are a terrible idea. Democrats have an amazing, deep bench of highly qualified, intelligent candidates for President. We should celebrate them—all of them, and their ideas—not turn them against one another in a prime-time circular firing squad.

Debates are designed to be confrontational. There’s score keeping. There’s grandstanding. There are winners and losers. With a field this qualified—this early in the game—that’s not a smart approach. Rather than rushing to winnow down the crowd, the Democratic party should be showcasing the range of smart, progressive, practical, and beneficial policies and programs that these candidates stand behind.

So, here’s an idea. Instead of a dozen or more candidates standing stiffly behind podiums, trying to think up snappy comebacks or memorable bumper-sticker lines in the 30-seconds they have to speak, let’s do something completely different. Let’s ditch the network correspondents and their gotcha questions, the timers, the flashing lights, the podiums, the audience woo-woo, and the win/lose format. Instead, sit them down at a roundtable and let them brainstorm—collaboratively—the big issues facing this country. Give everyone at the table a chance to offer constructive input. Show the country that discussion—rather than debate—and mutual respect—rather than competition—can create the solutions that we desperately need. Maybe offer a series of these roundtable brainstorming sessions, each focused on one or two issues. I’d like to hear what each of these candidates would say, especially if the idea is to be collaborative, not self-promoting.  What a way to underscore the differences between the Republican Party’s obstructive, confrontational and downright nasty way of “governing,” and a Democratic [capital and small d], cooperative, good-of-the-country attitude. Publicly brainstorming the big issues could show the country–dare I say inspire us?–to see what could be done when people think big, think smart and think together.

We are at a dangerous moment in the run-up to the 2020 Presidential election. We’ve hardly even met some of the Democratic contenders, and the party “leadership” is already trying to narrow the field to a few favorites. Sure, culling the field could focus the almighty fundraising efforts and possibly create the non-diluted groundswell for a single candidate that would make things go more smoothly for the Democratic party apparatus. But in my opinion, that’s a mistake.

We know who the conventional “front runners” are (based on the destructive fundraising race and on far-too-early-to-be-credible polling). But things can change, and the lesser-known candidates have barely had a chance to introduce themselves. Let’s slow this thing down, and think beyond the way it’s always been done. The person currently occupying the White House has built his presidency on breaking all the rules. Maybe the Democrats could think about shaking things up a bit, too. But in a good way.

The post Democratic debates? How about something completely different this time appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The vice-presidential debate on Tuesday, October 4 will be more important than a simple discussion between two back-benchers. First, even though it is widely viewed that Hillary Clinton “won” the presidential debate on September 26, she has received a relatively light “bounce” from her victory. Instead of running even with Donald Trump, she seems to be up three or four points. That is still a precarious lead because Trump and his staff know that he did not attack Clinton in areas where she might be most vulnerable.

But the vice-presidential debate is likely to be substantively different from the presidential debate, because it will be much more substantive. Neither Tim Kaine nor Mike Pence has the personal baggage that either Trump or Clinton has. They are both students of policy and they differ on virtually every issue that separates conservatives from progressives. Kaine will likely play the compassion card, a key pillar of the progressive agenda and one that Clinton would be wise to use in her next debate. As much as conservatives like Pence like to talk about common sense, it is progressives have the corner on plain wisdom because they combine thoughtful analysis with compassion. That leads to public policy that helps people at all levels of income, but most so for those who are most in need.

Pence may sound wonky at times, but his ideas will fall as flat as those of the sixteen opponents that Trump had seeking the Republican nomination. They were full of slogans but virtually empty on solutions and thus it became a style, a match that gave Trump the upper hand from beginning to end. Pence is probably more well-versed in conservative policies than any of the other sixteen, with the possible exception of John Kasich.

The vice-presidential debate is the one that will be most informative to the American electorate, at least to those who have the interest to tune in. If we’re lucky, the talking heads and other pundits will devote a portion of their post-debate analysis to the issues. That couldn’t happen in the Republican debates because there essentially were no issues. It rarely happened in the Democratic debates because so much emphasis was on the horse race. But with the vice-presidential candidates, the race is less important and there is more room for issue discussion.

So many previous vice-presidential debates were mismatches such as Benson vs. Quayle or Biden vs. Palin. While Biden-Ryan in 2012 involved two knowledgeable and well-spoken candidates, the presidential candidates also chose to engage in substantive exchanges from time to time.

Maybe the words of Tim Kaine will be able to rally Bernie Sanders supporters in ways that Clinton’s have not yet done. It is becoming more clear that the election results will likely depend on Democratic turn-out and the fundamental way for the Clinton-Kaine ticket to enhance that is to persuade more Bernie supporters to come out to vote, and not waste their choice on the poorly-informed Gary Johnson.

Trump may be jealous that the vice-presidential debate is on a Tuesday night when there is no NFL football and only an American League wildcard game in baseball as distractions. Here’s hoping that people tune in to the debate and that Tim Kaine is on his game.

The post Vice-Presidential Debate very important as Clinton lead still must grow appeared first on Occasional Planet.

During the first Presidential debate of 2016, the one issue that Trump “won” was trade. Clearly, Hillary Clinton needs a better answer on this issue—particularly because it’s an issue that resonates in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Clinton should not allow Trump’s simplistic ideas on trade to stand. Nor should she sit by while he threatens to “tear up” all of our existing trade agreements.

Trade agreements come in many different forms. According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, we engage with 154 nations in the World Trade Organization, and we have individual free trade agreements with 20 additional countries.

I do not pretend to understand trade agreements, but I think that Hillary Clinton does. So, if I were asked to contribute a few lines to a new answer to Trump on trade, here’s what I’d suggest:

“Trade between nations is a complicated issue. There are no simple answers. We have trade agreements that are multinational—such as the WTO—and we have 20+ agreements that are between just the US and one other country. Each of these agreements is negotiated separately, so you have to study up on the particulars of each situation and each relationship. There is no one-size-fits-all.”

[She could add some facts about special situations with particular countries here.]

“And, by the way, there is a reason that we call them trade ‘agreements.’  They are the results of conversations, collaborative problem-solving and good-faith negotiations. For them to work, both sides have to agree. We don’t create trade agreements by dictating the terms to our trading partners.

“And, finally, when a potential president threatens to ‘rip up’ all of our existing trade agreements,’ our trading partners start feeling uneasy. As a former Secretary of State, I can tell you that that is not a good idea.  As I said at the debate, ‘Words matter.’ We need our friends and allies to feel that they can trust us to keep our promises and to negotiate in good faith.”

Just an idea.

The post What Hillary could say about trade agreements appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Gore Vidal’s and William F. Buckley’s political views were as diametrically opposed as they could be, but the two men shared one major characteristic: They were both insufferable narcissists.

That’s one of my main takeaways from “Best of Enemies,” an excellent documentary chronicling a series of television appearances by Vidal and Buckley during the 1968 Republican and Democratic presidential conventions. According to the film, someone at ABC News had the innovative [at the time] idea of putting the ultra-conservative Buckley—editor of the politically influential National Review—in a studio with Vidal—the best-selling author, screenwriter and liberal pundit—and having them debate the issues arising at each convention. The results were explosive—and they paved the way to much of what passes for political debate and news reporting today.

I wish I could say that I remember the series. I did, in fact, watch the 1968 conventions—mostly in horror, especially when the Democratic convention in Chicago devolved into a police riot against anti-war protesters. But I wasn’t watching ABC—no one watched ABC when CBS had Walter Cronkite and NBC had Huntley/Brinkley—so I missed the whole debacle within the debacle.

And If I ever did know about it, I had long ago forgotten the infamous low point, when Vidal called Buckley a “crypto-fascist on live tv, prompting Buckley to clench his fist, call Vidal a “queer,” and threaten to punch Vidal in the face right there..

That confrontation is the central image of “Best of Enemies.” But there’s a lot more, both in the lead-in to that moment and in the follow-up on its aftermath. Much of the documentary consists of contemporaneously filmed and videotaped news broadcasts of the day. I’m happy to report that the filmmakers do not seem to have remastered the tapes—so we see them much the way they appeared live on our tv’s—grainy, sometimes out of focus and static-y, and often clumsily produced. The result is a time-machine ride back to the way we actually saw things in 1968. [And the opportunity to name-check politicians and celebrities who appear in the background in some of the coverage. Everett Dirksen! Bob Dole! Muhammad Ali!]

Between the live broadcasts are interviews with people who were behind-the-scenes: a former president of ABC News, William Buckley’s seemingly nicer younger brother, a close friend of Vidal’s, and television-interviewer extraordinaire Dick Cavett. Their candid remarks bring to life the seething animosity between Vidal and Buckley, which endured long after their television series ended: Their mutual hatred was not staged, and not just a matter of radically different political philosophies—it was personal, and it showed.

In the debates themselves, both exemplified the worst traits of people who enjoy calling themselves intellectuals. They were pompous. They were condescending. They struck intellectual poses and rolled their eyes at each other’s statements. They spoke in the affected tones of the Eastern-elite class of the day.

Both came prepared to try to decimate the other, or to cause him to self-destruct. Vidal practiced his zingers with reporters before the debates. He gave Buckley’s magazine the Voldemort treatment: He refused to utter its name and claimed that he never read it. For his part, Buckley came armed to one of the debates with a surprise dirty trick apparently designed to completely unnerve Vidal: He produced what he purported to be a hand-written note from Robert Kennedy, in which Kennedy bad-mouthed Vidal [who was a close confidante of Jacqueline Kennedy]. Buckley’s move was in especially bad taste, considering that Robert Kennedy had been assassinated less than three months earlier.

In the end, the whole thing boiled down to a clash of giant egos. It was more about putting down the other guy, serving up the best one-liners and winning gotcha points than it was about which political philosophy was morally defensible and better for the country and its people. Their on-screen clashes turned out to be headline-makers that boosted ABC’s also-ran ratings. TV executives learned from Vidal and Buckley’s confrontations that giving obnoxious people air time was financially beneficial. The media’s war on substance had begun, or as one commenter in the film put it, it was the start of the tug-of-war between “illumination and viewability.”

I think we know who won.

The post “Best of Enemies:” 1968’s Buckley-Vidal debates, and how they helped spawn Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Maybe it was the format: Each of the 14 Republican candidates for President was questioned individually in 5- to 6-minute segments, with no audience reaction allowed and no opportunity to address the other candidates. Maybe it was the intelligent, non-gotcha questioning by clearly conservative, but very calm, radio talk-show host Jack Heath. Or maybe I’m just going soft in my older age [nah!]. Whatever the reason, I came away from last night’s New Hampshire Republican presidential forum with the impression that this year’s array of Republican candidates is more intelligent and less wacko than I have been led to believe.

Don’t get me wrong: I disagree with almost every policy espoused by almost every one of the candidates. Some of what they said is just plain not supported by facts [e.g., Scott Walker’s Wisconsin economic miracle; Ted Cruz’s statement that Jimmy Carter “abandoned the hostages in Iran”]. Much of what they said is not about helping people or doing constructive things: they all want to repeal Obamacare, cut back on Medicaid, cripple government’s ability to function, and give corporations whatever they want whenever they want it. And some of what they said is downright dangerous [e.g., Lindsey Graham’s saber-rattling abut Iran]. If I had to pick the one candidate whose ideas made any sense to me, it would have to be Rand Paul—but I would never vote for him.

I watched the whole thing, live on C-SPAN. I took notes. I scoffed and sniffed and snarked and talked back to the tv. The conservative moderator teed-up their answers with softball questions. And in a twist that I found rather humorous, a disembodied voice introduced each candidate’s segment by reciting a bit of puffery [“Carly Fiorina was CEO of the 11th biggest technology company in the world”] that was rather obviously supplied by the candidates’ own propaganda wings. And clearly, they had all been well-coached and prepped on issues that they’ve probably never really thought about before deciding to run for President [Bobby Jindal on the Iran nuclear deal, to name just one].

Maybe these candidates were just on their best behavior in a friendly environment. But none of them sounded like the idiots that I had expected [and, admittedly, hoped for]. I acknowledge that not drooling or going completely blank is a very low bar. But they all did better than that. Even Chris Christie was uncharacteristically subdued and rational.

And that’s the surprise. Judging from what I read and see, virtually daily in the media, I was expecting much more craziness and much less articulateness. We’ve become accustomed to click-bait headlines [“You won’t believe what Mike Huckabee said today about women!”] and out-of-context quotes cherry-picked for shock value. Today, we’re going to see and read a lot of morning-after analysis, replete with the funniest or the most outrageous or the most misinformed sound bites.

We may get a clearer picture of the candidates’ campaign personalities on Thursday [August 6, 2015], when Fox News hosts its candidate debate. I suspect that we’ll see a lot more belligerence and right-wing pandering at that event. But for now, one of my takeaways from the first forum is that there’s a disconnect between the selective narratives we see in media reports [on both sides] and the reality of who people actually are.

The post Republican forum: Not as much of a clown car as I had expected appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Ever since the election-changing Presidential Debates between Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election, American voters have come to expect debates between candidates.

More recently, however–and particularly this year–campaign debates have gone into a state of decline: It’s becoming harder and harder to get political opponents to appear together live to discuss issues. [There’s also an accompanying decline in the level of discourse at debates that manage to make it to prime-time, but we’ll discuss that later.]

Here’s an example: In St. Louis, Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, incumbent Republican Ann Wagner is opposed by Democratic challenger Arthur Lieber. Lieber assumed that the the local chapter of the League of Women Voters would arrange a debate, because of the importance of a Congressional race. He assumed wrong. Contacting the League, he learned that only when a candidate requests a debate does the League spring into action. In this case, Lieber’s request triggered an attempt by the League to schedule a debate with Wagner–but her campaign said that she couldn’t participate, because she would be in Washington DC on the proposed dates. [A disingenuous answer, of course, because Congress has exactly zero days in session between now and the Nov. 4 election.] The League–and Lieber–are still waiting for a response to some alternate dates.

And that’s how it’s going everywhere: Candidates are ducking and covering, reneging on debate promises, cancelling scheduled debates, and using every excuse in the book to avoid face-to-face debates, or even lower-key public forums. It’s happening on the right and on the left, in red states and blue states, in Congressional races, governors’ races and mayoral contests.

It’s an epidemic of what some have called “political truancy.” And it’s robbing voters of something they deserve: a forum where candidates must face the public live, demonstrate their command of the issues, and allow themselves to be challenged on their ideas, unprotected by scripted advertisements and sanitized press releases.

Debate ducking

In Ohio, for the first time in 36 years, there will be no formal debate between the candidates for governor, incumbent John Kasich and challenger Ed FitzGerald, says the Columbus Dispatch. “The candidates blamed each other for a breakdown in negotiations. The last time  Ohioans experienced a gubernatorial campaign without a debate came in 1978, when Gov. James Rhodes wouldn’t debate Democratic challenger Richard F. Celeste.”

Similarly,  Colorado’s CBS 4 television outlet reports, “For the first time in CBS 4 history [30 years], an incumbent U.S. senator has declined to debate his opponent live on air. In fact, Sen. Mark Udall isn’t doing a debate on any of the four major network television stations in Denver.” One CBS 4 staffer commented:

Live debates are the one opportunity voters have to see candidates go toe-to-toe without a media filter, see the clarity of their vision and courage of their conviction; how they think on their feet and respond under pressure. We’ve been trying to schedule this debate for more than two months.

In Michigan, Republican Terri Lynn Land and Democrat Gary Peters are vying for the open seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat. Land, who has been running a low-visibility campaign dubbed “stealth” and “invisible” by some news reports, notoriously flopped during a primary debate, reportedly saying, “I can’t do this,” and later acknowledging that she was not comfortable with public appearances. She offers a classic case of debate avoidance. US News recently reported that:

[Land’s] refusal to debate might be the strategic decision that marks the beginning of the end of her long-shot hopes as the fall campaign veers into focus. Her political truancy is beginning to draw wider attention.

On Monday, the local NBC affiliate in Land’s hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, was forced to cancel its scheduled debate because Land’s campaign team never agreed to terms. In order to highlight her absence, Peters stole a page out of Clint Eastwood’s 2012 Republican National Convention playbook, propping up an empty chair and debating it in front of a gathering of his own supporters.

Michigan’s candidates for governor exhibit the same reluctance to debate. Incumbent Republican Governor Rick Snyder has, so far, declined all invitations to debate his Democratic challenger, Mark Schauer. Snyder is opting, instead for a series of town hall-style meetings with voters. Schauer’s camp calls this tactic an evasion. “A carefully scripted town hall with a partisan Republican audience is not the same as a statewide televised debate,” said a Schauer spokesperson recently.

The incredible, shrinking debate schedule

Even when candidates agree, in principle, to debate their opponents, they’re agreeing to fewer debates, balking over the rules, the venue, the time, the moderator, etc., and some even cancel previously arranged sessions, with little time for rescheduling. In Hawaii, for example, the democratic candidate for governor dropped out of a scheduled debate over the host organization’s intention to record the debate and post it, unedited, on its website. In Texas, the candidates running for governor–Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis–have scheduled, cancelled and then re-scheduled debates several times as they wrangled over the format of the meetings.

On Aug. 30, 2014, Montana’s Flathead Beacon reported this scenario:

With little more than two months to go before the general election, the only U.S. Senate candidate debate that had been scheduled in Bozeman by Friday was in question. …[Congressman Steve] Daines can’t attend on Oct. 4 and more coordination is needed before details would be confirmed. Other debates are in the works in eastern Montana and towns including Missoula, Kalispell and Helena. [Daines’ opponent] Ryan Zinke has declined to participate in debates in Great Falls and Billings.

Debates over debates are common in high-stakes political campaigns, says Michael Bitzer, professor of history and political science at Catawba College in Salisbury, North Carolina. The 2014 race for a U.S. Senate seat there features an intensely watched race between incumbent U.S. Senator Kay Hagan and her challenger, North Carolina Speaker of the House Thom Tillis. Hagan has agreed to three debates. Tillis wants more:

In the Louisiana race for U.S. Senate between Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu and Republican challengers Bill Cassidy, and Rob Maness, one debate has been scheduled [Oct. 14]. But while Landrieu and Maness have agreed to multiple dates, Cassidy has yet to commit to more than the Oct. 14 event. Both campaigns appear to be trying to jigger the schedule and the locations for maximum political advantage. The jockeying for political advantage is a bit dizzying, and it probably typifies the kind of calculations being made in other contests: . Here’s a glimpse of what may be going on, according to the Times-Picayune:

Campaign frontrunners generally want to avoid debates because they pose more a risk than an opportunity for leading candidates…Cassidy could be steering clear of debates if he thinks he is currently ahead of Landrieu in the election.

Of course, Landrieu isn’t necessarily pushing debates because she thinks she has fallen behind Cassidy and needs the exposure. The Democratic Senator may just believe her debate skills are superior to the Republicans…

The Republican congressman is likely reluctant to commit to more debates because the candidate perceives he has more to lose than his opponents, according to experts. It’s an unusual situation. Typically, incumbents like Landrieu turn down debates and challengers like Cassidy push for more of them.

Why is it so hard to get candidates to stand up, face-to-face in front of an audience of the people they hope to represent? Maybe it’s all political–not wanting to say something embarrassingly uninformed, not wanting to give an opponent the opportunity to look good at your expense, or simply not wanting to let people see who you really are without a script. Or maybe the problem is the format of debates themselves–a forum in which debate skills–the ability to outshout your opponent, overtalk him or her, or recite an unbroken litany of memorized facts–are valued more than thoughtful discourse. For most candidates, it’s simply easier and safer to share your image and a few pithy soundbites via the much safer method known as advertising.

Whatever the reason, the diminution of this aspect of political campaigns is, bottom line, a loss for voters and for democracy.

The post The sad state of campaign debates: 2014 edition appeared first on Occasional Planet.

You might think, if you are a leader of a political party, that you would seek as much air time on television and radio as possible. You might also think that it would be beneficial to your party if your candidates were able to penetrate the airwaves that traditionally are filled with information from and about opposing parties.

The operative word in the sentences is “think.” At the risk of sounding too judgmental, it strikes me that Republicans frequently have trouble rendering decisions that require real thinking rather than impulsive action based on beliefs that are likely founded on little or no reason.

Looking for a report on recent Republican actions that is “fair and balanced,” we got our latest information from Fox News.

The Republican National Committee has voted to boycott any presidential primary debates primary debates planned by CNN and NBC if they proceed with lengthy television features on Hillary Clinton, widely expected to be a 2016 Democratic candidate.

Okay, if I have this correct, the RNC (Republican National Committee) is going to try to prevent Republican candidates running for president from participating in debates sponsored by either CNN or NBC because those two networks will be presenting documentaries or docudramas about Hillary Clinton who may or may not be the 2016 Democratic nominee for president. Or as Fox further reports:

The RNC claims that a Clinton-themed documentary and a separate miniseries — in the works from CNN and NBC, respectively — will put a “thumb on the scales” in the upcoming 2016 presidential election.

The draft resolution, obtained by Fox News in advance and later voted on by RNC officials, calls on CNN and NBC to cancel what it describes as “political ads masked as unbiased entertainment.”

There are several assumptions that the RNC makes that are highly questionable. First they assume that the programs on Hillary Clinton will be slanted favorably towards her. We all know that she has plenty of baggage in the closet and it wouldn’t take much for either or both of the television networks to go for the ratings by promoting the films as “tell-alls” about Ms. Clinton. The RNC potentially could be biting the hand that feeds it.

Secondly, both CNN and NBC have millions of regular viewers. They may not tune in to watch a Republican debate on Fox but would likely watch it on more mainstream networks such as these two. But Fox reports:

Even before the Clinton dispute, Republican leaders favored plans to have fewer presidential debates with more friendly moderators. They believe their 2012 presidential candidates spent too much time beating up on each other in last year’s months-long primary season, contributing to Mitt Romney’s loss.

“Our party should not be involved in setting up a system that encourages the slicing and dicing of candidates over a long period of time with moderators that are not in the business of being at all concerned about the future of our party,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told reporters.

The RNC may well be right that in the 2012 presidential debates Republicans spent too much time beating up on each other. But it is doubtful that such conduct had anything to do with the questions that were asked by reporters. The RNC may also be correct that the debate moderators are not concerned about the future of their party. However, the RNC fails to ask the obvious question, “Is it the job of debate moderators to concern themselves about the well-being of the Republican Party?”

Finally, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for a television network to incorporate a little bit of revenge into its decisions. Ideally CNN and NBC would not have any of their programming affected by a possible boycott, but it’s quite conceivable that anyone along the chain of command could work to shade these networks’ coverage as deliberately anti-Republican.

One of the key challenges for the Republican Party is to stop making decisions that actually sound like jokes and instead to actually be serious about public policy. They claimed that they learned a lot from their experiences in 2012 yet with decisions like the boycott, they make us all wonder.

The post The curious “thinking” of Republicans continues appeared first on Occasional Planet.