« | »

NYT Chides Republican Debate For Incivility

From a reaching for the smelling salts, New York Times:

8 From G.O.P. Trade Attacks at Iowa Debate

August 11, 2011

AMES, Iowa — A withering critique of President Obama’s handling of the economy was overshadowed by a burst of incivility among the Republican presidential candidates who gathered here for a debate on Thursday night and fought to stay alive in the party’s increasingly fractious nominating race.

The simmering animosity that has been building among some contenders broke into full view during the two-hour debate, with Representative Michele Bachmann defending her legislative accomplishments, her economic ideas and her experience to serve as president. She batted away the criticism, smiling at times and swinging at others, trying to prove she could take the heat.

While the first votes of the Republican nominating contest are six months away, a sense of urgency already hangs over the campaign. Several candidates face a far earlier test and are struggling to avoid being embarrassed at the Iowa straw poll on Saturday — the same day Gov. Rick Perry of Texas intends to declare his candidacy and join the Republican race.

Tim Pawlenty, a former Minnesota governor who is seeking to rejuvenate his campaign, repeatedly assailed Mrs. Bachmann’s record. He stood directly at her side and accused her of “making false statements” and having “a record of misstatements.”

“The American people are going to expect more and demand more,” he said. His criticism was so stinging, quiet jeers could be heard in the crowd. He added: “If that’s your view of effective leadership with results, please stop, because you’re killing us.”

As the rest of the field looked on, Mrs. Bachmann shot back that Mr. Pawlenty pursued policies as Minnesota governor that sound “a lot more like Barack Obama, if you ask me.” She cited his support for cap-and-trade environmental policies and for individual health care mandates.

The debate, which took place in Stephens Auditorium on the campus of Iowa State University, came at a moment of increasing intensity in the Republican campaign

[T]he debate’s proximity to Saturday’s straw poll, a sink-or-swim moment for several candidates, led to the biggest display yet of combativeness among candidates who often evoke Ronald Reagan, but did not heed his 11th commandment, not to speak ill of fellow Republicans.

As Mr. Pawlenty tore after Mrs. Bachmann, Newt Gingrich went after the news media. Representative Ron Paul of Texas joined in the fight, taking exception to Mrs. Bachmann’s legislative record. Herman Cain, a businessman who has drawn large crowds in Iowa, dismissed all of his rivals as career politicians.

At one point, Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, raised his hand for attention and asked moderators to be included. When he finally was given his turn, he went after nearly all of his rivals, accusing Mrs. Bachmann of “showmanship, not leadership” by opposing raising the nation’s debt ceiling.

Notice the over the top language The Times uses throughout this exegesis. We must have been watching a different debate. The authors here sound like they are about to get the vapors from all the heated rhetoric.

Of course, we all know how much denizens at The Times hate to see Republican candidates go after each other.

In the middle of it all, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor making his debut on the debate stage, struggled to be heard. Again and again, he urged his rivals to focus on creating jobs

Naturally, their candidate, Mr. Huntsman escapes any and all criticism.

When Byron York, a conservative columnist at The Washington Examiner who was on the panel of questioners, asked Mrs. Bachmann about her vow to be submissive to her husband, Marcus, the audience gasped and then booed. She smiled, paused and replied, “Thank you for that question, Byron.”

“What submission means to us, if that’s what your question is,” she added, “it means respect.”

The Times probably thinks that is a very ironic way to end their article.

Of course they don’t know the first thing about respect.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, August 12th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

12 Responses to “NYT Chides Republican Debate For Incivility”

  1. proreason says:

    The re-ascension of yellow journalism prose, spearheaded by those junior-high admirers at the NY Slimes.

    • BannedbytheTaliban says:

      Remember the Maine…focus is on getting Obama re-elected.

      My take away from the debates is that there were actual differences in the candidates. Unlike a DNC debate where you have twelve people all saying the same thing, tax the rich.

  2. Howard Roark says:

    Yes, according to the weak sisters at the NYT, this Republican primary debate is an example of “incivility”, but the rabble in London are merely “victims of hopelessness”. This issue will end up where its best purpose can be realized: the kitchen floor where my Boston Terrier Zoe can treat it the way it deserves.

  3. tranquil.night says:

    It was a predictably scripted joke and I’m still not seeing anyone from the top-tier handle the stupid media templates effectively. On the contrary they seem quite content to fit into their pre-molded caricatures.

    The best performers were those with nothing to lose. Before I turned it off, the one amusing point was Newt telling Wallace to shove it with the pointless gotchas.

  4. untrainable says:

    How can the NYT recognize incivility? It’s like giving a blind man a Rorschach test.

  5. Natural Born Citizen says:

    With Fox News mediating the debate at least there were some tough questions unlike “How do you like your pizza? Thin crust or thick? And when was the last time his Zero-ness had to answer a tough question from the press? I think Newt tapped into something; the MSM has been spewing propaganda and none of the Republican leadership has challenged them. It is past time to call them out for there biased and unbalanced reporting.

  6. untrainable says:

    I’ve been listening to all the talking heads talk about Pawlenty and Bachman’s feuding, Santorum and Paul going at it, Newt and his jabs at the media, and how Romney was the big winner because his hair was still neatly combed by the end of the debate. I saw all that, and some of it made me chuckle, but my favorite moment was when Herman Cain responded to the question about the tax holiday on repatriated funds. He said something along the lines of “If corporations want to take that money and give it to their share-holders…SO WHAT? IT’S THEIR MONEY!!!” For me that was one breath of fresh air in an unyielding torrent of the same old crap.

    As for the incivlilty, what we need in politics today are people who are more concerned about doing what’s right for the country than whether or not what they say is politically correct. And if incivility is the price of real-world solutions to America’s problems, then the more incivility the better.

  7. JohnMG says:

    ….”Of course they don’t know the first thing about respect…..”

    Or about traditional marriage. You know, Adam and Eve versus Adam and Steve.

    But yes, it would be refreshing if the whole bunch started handing the crap back to the media. They may not like it, but if they didn’t report what was said, what would they report? Any thinking person already knows the MBM is a propaganda organ for the DNC.

    Everything to gain and nothing to lose. Why not go for broke?

  8. Astravogel says:

    Sheen and Lohan 2012.

    Now that’d be a ticket…

« Front Page | To Top
« | »