Al Hunt writes opinion columns for Bloomberg. There's never any reason to read them; the opinion is always the same: Republicans are doing something terrible and Democrats are fine. Today, however, there's a new column from Hunt that's moronic even by his standards (and that is truly saying something.)
Hunt today is arguing that the GOP presidential candidates have not told anyone how they would govern if elected. According to Hunt, the debates have been basically devoid of substance. That sure sounds like the new talking points from the DNC and Clinton campaigns when it comes to describing the GOP debates. Nevertheless, I have to point out these few sentences from Hunt:
To be sure, there have been deceptive debates in past presidential campaigns. Obama presented himself as a protectionist, vowing to renegotiate trade pacts. ...
Still, campaigns and debates matter. They helped Americans know what to expect from the Ronald Reagan and Obama presidencies.
So Hunt first tells us that Obama lied about what he planned to do as president but then he tells us that these debates which he calls deceptive told Americans what to expect from an Obama presidency. Even for a third rate liberal columnist like Hunt, those statements ought to be hard to write. Does he mean that people who heard Obama in the debates were supposed to know he was telling lies and that gave them a clue what he would really do? Does he mean that despite the lies, Americans were somehow supposed to understand from the debates what Obama was planning?
Look, the real truth is that the debates have been captive to their format. The media planned for one minute answers to questions that cannot be discussed in less than five minutes. That was true for the Democrats as well as for the GOP. On top of that, the format leaves it up to the moderators to come up with questions that will hit important topics. CNBC came up with fantasy football, the purported "comic book" style of Donald Trump and statements made by a former co-worker of Fiorina at Hewlett Packard. No wonder there was limited substance.
Hunt today is arguing that the GOP presidential candidates have not told anyone how they would govern if elected. According to Hunt, the debates have been basically devoid of substance. That sure sounds like the new talking points from the DNC and Clinton campaigns when it comes to describing the GOP debates. Nevertheless, I have to point out these few sentences from Hunt:
To be sure, there have been deceptive debates in past presidential campaigns. Obama presented himself as a protectionist, vowing to renegotiate trade pacts. ...
Still, campaigns and debates matter. They helped Americans know what to expect from the Ronald Reagan and Obama presidencies.
So Hunt first tells us that Obama lied about what he planned to do as president but then he tells us that these debates which he calls deceptive told Americans what to expect from an Obama presidency. Even for a third rate liberal columnist like Hunt, those statements ought to be hard to write. Does he mean that people who heard Obama in the debates were supposed to know he was telling lies and that gave them a clue what he would really do? Does he mean that despite the lies, Americans were somehow supposed to understand from the debates what Obama was planning?
Look, the real truth is that the debates have been captive to their format. The media planned for one minute answers to questions that cannot be discussed in less than five minutes. That was true for the Democrats as well as for the GOP. On top of that, the format leaves it up to the moderators to come up with questions that will hit important topics. CNBC came up with fantasy football, the purported "comic book" style of Donald Trump and statements made by a former co-worker of Fiorina at Hewlett Packard. No wonder there was limited substance.
No comments:
Post a Comment