If moderators provide commentary, “fact-checking”, opinion, interrupt answers, and side with one of the “debaters”, uh, it’s not a debate. It is an American “progressive”, manipulated, media propaganda show.
I haven’t seen a real Presidential or VP debate yet this year. However, regardless attempts to manipulate the outcome, it seems Constitutionally conservative values still ring true.
Yet, given how the decks have been loaded against American founding principles by the “progressive” media, entertainment, education, bureaucrats, and international detractors (U.N., etc.), should Romney be debating Obama at all?
In reality, there is no room to debate an ideology that moves outside of our Constitutional foundations. To debate the efficacy of free-markets vs. collectivism is akin to debating the efficacy of a round vs. square wheel. There is no debate unless one doesn’t mind a car that won’t roll, an airplane that won’t take off, or — a world that comes to a complete standstill.
If in a position to debate the POTUS, I personally would decline. Instead, I would hold a news conference in which I would present the facts that demonstrate why a debate is impossible and possibly unconstitutional. I would also present my plan — without interruption, and the deficiencies in the POTUS’ performance and plan — without mediator defense or “fact checking”.
Then, I would lay down the gauntlet and say, “When this POTUS is willing to debate within the boundaries of what our nation IS — within the boundaries of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and founding principles — then, and only then, am I willing to debate. Then we can debate different strategies to get out of the way of Americans and let THEM recover our nation — as they always have and always will.”
No, I would not debate with a collectivist as debating him would validate his ideology as a possible alternative to free-markets, individual liberty and founding American principles.
Finally, in the closing remarks of the news conference — to provide alternatives for liberty’s detractors who would love nothing more than to faux-debate to continue to chip away at American exceptionalism — I would simply provide toll-free numbers for immigration departments within several collectivist nations. Then I would say, “If you prefer another form of government — an alternative to our Constitutional Republic — here are the numbers you can call to schedule immigration to countries with collectivist governments. Yet, if you plan to remain an American, you must understand that you are responsible for you, our government and the taxpayers who fund it, are not. And the good thing is that America doesn’t hold anyone here against their will unlike many of the countries you may choose.”
What is interesting is that even with the deck loaded against Constitutionally conservative, American principles — Romney still came out on top in each “debate” to a majority of viewers. The truth will always set us free.
No, these are not debates. They are “progressive” advertising, messaging, and propaganda for the collectivist ideology.
David M. Chaney (C) 2012