Sometimes in their commentary, our readers express points important enough to merit a post of their own. Our loyal reader and regular commenter V the K did just that in a comment to my recent post on Newt Gingrich:
Why was so much time even put to the question of gay marriage last night? Really? Our economy is strangling in taxes and bureaucracy. Iran is nuking up as [President Obama] guts our military. EUrotopia is collapsing into bankruptcy. China’s economy is slowing. [Obama] has been shutting down domestic hydrocarbon production while loaning billions to Brazil for offshore drilling and running guns to Mexican drug gangs. The [president] is making unconstitutional appointments and just signed a law letting himself detain American citizens indefinitely for no reason… and they spend the first quarter of the debate talking about gay marriage? WTF?
I think we know why. Gay marriage is a tribal marker, and the inquisitors brought it up to establish affiliation with their liberal tribe and also in hopes of making the Republicans look whacky. We also know that liberals vote based on social issues, and that social issues trump economics and national security for the Democrat base. So, the MFM get a threefer, they get to ask Republicans potentially awkward questions, they get to smugly assert their membership in the liberal tribe, and they help Obama get his base motivated. Win. Win. Win.
Edited as indicated because I don’t feel it appropriate to use the term he used to describe the President of the United States. Emphasis added. George Stephanopoulos, Michael Barone wrote about the former Clinton White House official’s moderation of last night’s debate, “who otherwise has made an almost Russert-like transition from partisan operative to fair-minded journalist, seemed to be trying to get the Republican candidates in trouble“.
Seems that the folks in the legacy media would rather contrast the Republicans with the Democrats on social issues than acknowledge that (many of) the GOP presidential candidates are doing what the incumbent is not–putting forward real solutions to our nation’s pressing economic and fiscal problems, the top items on most voters mind as this year’s election approaches.
Folks, like Stephanopolous, in the legacy media want to make it appear that the Republican candidates are obsessed with social issues.
Indeed, many of my friends and acquaintances in LA see the GOP as a party obsessed with social issues. At the same time, these very people who vote Democratic because they see the Republicans as social troglodytes, share the GOP perspective on the the deficit an the economy, concerned by ever growing government spending and frustrated by increasingly regulation of private enterprise. Those may ask such questions as if such issues are paramount in the minds of the Republican candidates, but the candidates themselves in their stump speeches and policy pronouncements are more focused on economic and national security issues.
Yes, the questions are biased, but Barone contends this might actually help Republicans:
. . . there is something to be said for having hostile questioners: it sharpens Republican candidates, makes them figure out how to turn questions around and answer them in ways that frame the issue their way. Democratic candidates tend not to get this kind of practice and can go into general election contests less prepared to make their case.
Indeed, the sage pundit wondered if some of the “moderators” are fishing for sound byte for Democratic candidates:
David Gregory’s invitation to the Republicans to name three areas in which voters will feel pain from their proposals shows his mindset: Republican policies hurt people, Democratic policies help them. Would he ask an equivalent question of Democratic candidates?
Without folks like Gregory to push administration arguments, one wonders if the incumbent would be doing as well in the polls as he is.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Geena offers:
They all handled it quite well. It’s pretty obvious no one on that stage is going to take the bait. Thank goodness Bachmann and Cain are out.
And this question: “What do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?”
What do they expect? The executive branch to run a dating service?
Indeed. (Emphasis added.)