If the overall mood of the nation is any indication, it appears that the GOP may win back both the House and the Senate during the mid-terms.
Joe
Biden's catastrophic presidency and the Democrats' support for issues that
stand against both popular and national interests are the primary causes of
this anti-Democrat wave.
Despite this, the Democrats have put on a defiant display.
They seldom concede any of their mistakes, in fact, they run in the opposite direction. They demonize and dehumanize their political opponents and their supporters as extremists who are a threat to Democracy.
Biden’s unhinged speech last week is ample proof of that.
The
Democrats and their propagandists are now claiming
the Democrats are on track for a resurgence in the mid-terms.
The New York Times is claiming to have “growing
evidence against a Republican wave.” While The Washington Post
opines that Democrats are showing momentum
coming out of special elections.
If this was true and they think they support the right issues, the Democrats should have been eager to debate their GOP opponents and demolish them on live TV to seal the deal with voters.
However, that isn’t happening.
Last
week The
Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood reported that some Democrat candidates in
key U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races are dodging debates
with their Republican opponents.
Pennsylvania’s
Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate John Fetterman announced that he wouldn't
be participating in a televised debate scheduled for Sept. 6 against his
Republican opponent Mehmet Oz. HE cited his ongoing recovery from a stroke as
the reason.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1564789230366330886
Since
his stroke in May, Fetterman has made fewer campaign appearances, when he did
appear, he engage in incoherent ramblings.
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1562181700305788928
Dr. Oz’s team released a list of concessions for the debate to accommodate Fetterman. These included offers to “‘pay for any additional medical personnel’ that Fetterman might need on standby” and “bathroom breaks and allowing him to have all of his notes on hand, along with an earpiece to obtain answers from his staff.”
But
instead of being thankful for Oz's accommodations, Fetterman attempted to characterize it as a mockery of
his suffering and recovery.
Fetterman hasn't committed to appear in any of the five moderated debates proposed by Oz earlier this month.
Pennsylvania
isn’t the only state where Democrat candidates are unwilling to debate their Republican
opponents.
Arizona’s Democrat candidates for governor and U.S. Senate,
Katie Hobbs and Mark Kelly were avoiding debates with their respective GOP
opponents, Kari Lake and Blake Masters. They cited misgivings about the existing
debate format as their excuse.
https://twitter.com/sbarchenger/status/1563335266151976962
https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1563592971001376768
Lake
has said she’d debate Hobbs at
any time and place, even offering to let her Democratic opponent write the
questions.
She
even posted a debate challenge on Twitter
https://twitter.com/KariLake/status/1561894558778003456
Debate
organizers gave Hobbs and Kelly a deadline of last Friday e to accept or
decline the invitation to the October debate
https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1564469714083987456
https://twitter.com/sbarchenger/status/1563335269129920512
Democrat
Katie Hobbs declined
to a televised debate with Republican Kari Lake as both seek the
Arizona governor’s office, instead proposing individual interviews with the
moderator.
However, Senator Mark Kelly had a
change of heart and consented to a debate with Blake Masters.
So are these debates that important and do they focus on the issues?
Not always.
At times it is about appearance.
For the Kennedy-Nixon 1960 general election debate, all those who heard that debate on the radio thought Nixon won while those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won.
This is because Nixon tended to sweat under the bright television lights and even appears awkward and uncomfortable on camera while Kennedy had movie star charisma and confidence before the camera. The debate was hence unfair because the audiences were unknowingly judging candidates not by the content of their answers but by their physical appearance.
At times there are theatrical moments that are exploited by the media.
During
the 1988 United States vice-presidential debate, in response to GOP candidate Senator Dan
Quayle mentioning the name of President John F. Kennedy, Democrat candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen
responded “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack
Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.” Quale
didn’t have much of a comeback to that.
The liberal media attempted to portray this as the end of the Bush-Quayle ticket.
But that didn’t happen. The Bush–Quayle ticket defeated Dukakis–Bentsen in the presidential election by a margin of 8% of the popular vote and an electoral landslide, with the Democrats winning only ten states. Yet they claimed it was the reason Quayle much of his political capital.
At times it is about persuasion and the issues
Back
in 2016, Donald Trump used the debates effectively to triumph over his GOP
opponents during the primaries. Trump used what noted cartoonist and author
Scott Adams referred to as the linguistic kill shot where
he highlighted the weakness of the target by branding him with a terse and unique
combination of catchy words that are also funny.
Jeb
Bush who was the front runner in the GOP Primary played the part of the calm
and levelheaded leader, who could count on especially during a crisis. Trump
branded him ‘low energy, suddenly the focus shifted to Jeb’s droopy
shoulders and vacant expressions.
The ‘low energy’ perception prevailed during the debates when the Jeb looked helpless when confronted by Trump about being a puppet in the hands of big political donors and lobbyists.
Trump branded Hillary Clinton as 'Crooked' as he exposed her as inept, corrupt, and a total failure.
This is why debates are still important.
Beyond the focus on appearance and amateur theatrics, it presents voters with the opportunity to see their representatives in a pressure situation.
We are living in times where every campaign event is micromanaged and every syllable is subjected to a meticulous multistage vetting process by consultants, experts, and pollsters.
It is hence refreshing to see some extemporaneous moments from the candidates. They don’t have teleprompters or notes or consultants to talk to. There are hopefully, no earpieces, and the questions are hopefully not known in advance.
So how should Oz and Keri Lake react?
They
should release adverts highlighting their respective opponents' refusal to
debate, accompanied by messages such as “if they cannot stand up to me, how can
they stand up for you” and “only those who are either are not confident about
the issues they stand for or have something to hide run away from
debates".
This
is an opportunity for Oz and Lake to portray their opponents as running scared
and weak.
Nobody votes for the scared and the weak
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment