Dennis Miller On CNN Debate: ‘Obama Won’

Posted on | October 21, 2011 | 25 Comments

by Smitty

Dennis Miller says, contemplating another dozen debates: “We cannot have everybody up there like nine praying mantises in a Helmand’s jar with three air hoses, breaking antennas and spitting tobacco on each other and trying to get to the air.”

via Just A Conservative Girl

Update: Linked at Daily Pundit.

Category: Video

Comments

25 Responses to “Dennis Miller On CNN Debate: ‘Obama Won’”

Joe
October 21st, 2011 @ 10:27 am

That is over reaction. We need to sort out who the right candidate should be to take on Obama. They can’t just say each other are great. That said, I do want to hear from the candidates why they are the best choice to take on Barack Obama and reverse four years of failed and destructive policies. Do you think Anderson Cooper will ask that question?

I know Levin, Limbaugh or a panel of conservatives would ask it. Conservatives need to run their own debates. What is wrong with us? The Dems never would agree to a Democrat primary debate on Fox. Never.
Scott
October 21st, 2011 @ 11:13 am

Apparently, to remain cordial, it is necessary to ignore Romney’s entire career, his operatives stabbing Perry in the back a la Palin while he remains above the fray, and his pathetic attempts to rewrite history, or at least his book. If so, the establishment party wins, and we get Obama Light.

Interesting that Cain likes Romney a lot more than Perry? Think that means anything about Cain? I find it very bothersome.
Daily Pundit » Self Interest Destroying the GOP In Current Debate Structure
October 21st, 2011 @ 11:18 am

[…] Dennis Miller On CNN Debate: ‘Obama Won’ : The Other McCain Dennis Miller says, contemplating another dozen debates: “We cannot have everybody up there like nine praying mantises in a Helmand’s jar with three air hoses, breaking antennas and spitting tobacco on each other and trying to get to the air.” […]
Andrew Patrick
October 21st, 2011 @ 11:38 am

Exactly. The GOP needs to stop acting like a whipped cur.
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 11:54 am

While I don’t disagree that it would be extremely worthwhile to have some debates with moderators like the ones you mentioned, I think it’s also good to expose these guys to a little taste of what the general will look like.

I don’t expect someone like Levin to throw any softballs, but his questions will be very different than the sorts of questions you get from, say, the WaPo or NBC. Getting that exposure (in general and in primaries in particular) helps conservatives sharpen their message.
Joe
October 21st, 2011 @ 12:05 pm

I do not need liberals screening GOP candidates and carrying water for Obama and the Dems.
Joe
October 21st, 2011 @ 12:06 pm

I heard Glenn Beck going over how Herman Cain either thinks abortion is not murder (hence the lack of regulation position) or he thinks it is murder and Herman is nuts.

This is why I would caution Herman Cain giving interviews on the fly and not being a bit more careful with his answers. Talking about getting off your game at the wrong time.
Finrod Felagund
October 21st, 2011 @ 12:15 pm

It’s difficult to sharpen anything when there are rocks being thrown at your head.
ThePaganTemple
October 21st, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

That’s probably the first thing I noticed about him. Of course everybody was going after Perry at that time because he was top dog.
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 12:31 pm

Me neither, but that’s not going to stop them. I’d rather find out a year ahead of time that my guy can’t stand the heat.
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

I think his later walk back made a lot of sense, and is pretty similar to my views on the topic. Basically, he needs to be more aware of how he’s coming across, and to make sure the audience understands the assumptions he’s making, since we can’t read his mind.

This is true for all politicians, of course, and is why they tend to speak in pre-vetted sound bites. I think it’s possible to avoid the sound bite and the never ending gaffe, but you’ve gotta be prepared to understand the topic and to express yourself clearly but succinctly.
just a conservative girl
October 21st, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

Thanks for the linky love. It is always appreciated.

I like his survivor idea. Each debate someone else gets voted off.
Adjoran
October 21st, 2011 @ 4:22 pm

There isn’t much to be gained by tearing each other to pieces, or trying to.

Criticism of records and policy proposals is fine, and can be sharp without degenerating into a personal attack. All the personal crap does is turn off any independent voters watching and hurt our chances for unity next fall.

Cull the field to those with double digit support in at least one recent national poll (30-45 days). The rest have had their chance, now is the time to get off the stage. Obviously those are NOT going to boost their campaigns through the debates. If they climb into double digits through ground work, they’re back in.

We’ve had enough “open” debates, no one can say they didn’t have a chance.
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

But it is a whipped cur.
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

He shouldn’t have to walk back after giving remarks on abortion. How can a GOP candidate not have a well prepared response to the questions everybody knows will be asked of any GOP candidate about abortion.
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

I’m pretty sure both Perry and Romney will be spending time between now and the next debate attending charm school.
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

Everyone understands that the GOP establishment is wholly interested in co-opting the Tea Party, right? The GOP doesn’t actually embrace the Tea Party except as votes for the GOP machine. If you grasp that context, then you can follow the “big money” to the “frontrunners.”

There’s a concerted effort to diminish the power of the Tea Party and actual, small government conservatism. By how many? Who knows, but it’s real. (See Trent Lott (R), an elder of the previous guard.) It’s imperative to remain independent and not get bamboozled by those who are intent upon winnowing out real reformers to our corrupted politics Left and Right.

Obama didn’t win. Not a single vote has been cast. No one has won a thing no matter what the message makers trumpet. Be aware of the game and remind your peers; then vote your conscience regardless of what the polls and faux elites declare.
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 6:42 pm

While true that being prepared on this topic would be an asset, why are we, yet again, having to be prepared on this topic? Why is this even on the radar right now? Is this the most vital thing of a very long list of things we need to be worrying about?

See, this is the problem. CNN’s Piers Morgan started this brouhaha (I guess it’s a brouhaha… the talkings heads said so!). WTH does Morgan care about abortion other than as a weapon of chaos in the GOP primary? How is this in any way the most consequential of items facing this nation? And why isn’t Morgan interested in Obama’s actual policy of letting babies out of the womb die post birth as a matter of “choice”?

This entire debate is to sabotage the GOP field and not a thing more. That is the MFM’s goal and one that the readers here know to be true. So why enable this BS? And, yes, we as voters/viewers are enabling this. We’re getting bent out of shape and volunteering for circular firing squads on issues that a) are established by political enemies and b) while emotionally gripping not nearly as vital to the nation’s acute pain as a laundry list of other issues.

I don’t care how any of the beauty contestants answer this question right now. And that goes for any number of other traps being set up for the candidates. I suggest everyone do as Perry did with CNN’s Cooper and say, paraphrased, “You go ahead and ask whatever you want and I’ll answer how I like.” The candidates can ignore and refute the premise on the spot and we, the judges, should appreciate when they go off script. (See Newt Gingrich.) Just understand why they are going off script so that we can appreciate the real messages that need the most urgent airing.
AngelaTC
October 21st, 2011 @ 6:52 pm

I don’t know if you can cater to the social conservatives without all the personal issues though. The libertarian leaning conservatives could give a rat’s ass if Newt’s been divorced multiple times, but that is a big issue for a lot of us (and I include myself in the latter). And I definitely I don’t want to see a process where we get to watch the candidates bicker about a bunch of crap they agree on, which is what 2008 was (almost).
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 7:06 pm

All your points are correct until you get to the last paragraph. For better or worse Cain may never be as adept at sidestepping a question as Gingrich. If he’s going to talk to the media at all he will be asked these questions precisely because the left knows that any successful GOP candidate’s position will be diametrically opposed to the SD position. Cain isn’t a talented enough dissembler to avoid having to take a position. No matter who is asking the question and even if all conservatives had no interest in talking about abortion, which is not the case, when that question is asked conservative,s ears will perk up and attentively await the answer. For many conservatives this issue is the litmus test that matters.

Even candidates whose position are well known will be asked simply so the SD media can run it on their programs.
Anonymous
October 21st, 2011 @ 7:37 pm

I don’t think anyone will be as good as Gingrich about sidestepping. Gingrich is clearly expert. But I won’t punish a candidate for trying even if they aren’t quite as gifted. You can be “decent enough” as long as you get to the most pressing issue as fast as possible. That’s really a major point with me in our beauty contests of politics.

Sure, litmus tests are unavoidable, but they can be prioritized. Everyone has several “litmus tests” in a hierarchy of them. In my opinion, anyway. For example, I don’t think someone will say, “I won’t vote for that guy ’cause he’s pro-choice (and I agree with all of his other positions) even though his opponent is anti-2nd amdt, loves socialized medicine, would yield sovereignty to the U.N., and believes in speech codes.” Voters adjust their litmus in the context of the solutions presented. So, litmus tests! are a bit of an emotional shout for most voters, ultimately. It’s a threat to move the debate to their particular hobby horse (of many hobby horses, actually) of the day.

I’d just like to see candidates practice and exercise some discretion in how they handle the “gotchas” so as to wrestle control away from those whose goal is to bury them. If they can call out the executioner and then proceed with presenting the most urgent planks that need to be built, then they will build a better constituency.
Adjoran
October 22nd, 2011 @ 1:34 am

I’m not saying such issues can’t be raised – BUT that they should be raised in the context of issues or electability and without the animus. We’re just making video clips for Obama now, how many of these attacks will find their way into his commercials?
ThePaganTemple
October 22nd, 2011 @ 8:26 am

Its worth pointing out here that Miller is a good pal of O’Reilly, and that they’re both in the tank for Romney, only they obviously aren’t going to come out and admit that. Listen to O’Reilly talk about Obama and you’ll get a pretty good clue as to what a Romney general election campaign will sound like. A hint, its not exactly inspirational. As for Miller, if you listen long enough, he’ll eventually say something that’s funny as hell. By the time it happens you won’t be expecting it.
Andrew Patrick
October 22nd, 2011 @ 1:39 pm

And the fix to that is… stop acting like it.
Anonymous
October 22nd, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

But can it? I have my doubts.