When 2 + 2 Is Not Allowed To Equal 4
For those of you who may be new to this blog (now getting several thousand hits per month), It exists for two primary reasons: espouse the virtues of limited government, and expose disingenuousness on both sides of the political aisle. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a fiscal conservative and, for the most part, a social liberal. To the extent possible, I endeavor to avoid being doctrinaire. Context can and does matter.
That brings me to today's topic—this evening's edition of Happy Hour on the Fox Business Network. I was particularly interested to watch because one of the guests was Marco Rubio, the attractive, young conservative U.S. Senatorial candidate from Florida. Rubio, a former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, is vying for the Republican Senatorial nomination against Charlie Crist. Crist, of course, has been in the national spotlight for some time as Florida's governor, and, to the chagrin of fiscal conservatives, for his recent support of cap and trade, as well as the $787 billion "stimulus."
Although it was initially assumed that Crist would run away with the nomination, several curious policy choices, including the aforementioned two, have made the situation much less certain. Rubio has become the darling of the limited government crowd, and, is rising rapidly in the polls. I was intrigued to see whether or not he could express his ideas clearly and concisely, and if he is as substantive and innovative as his record seems to indicate.
Given the format (i.e. a relatively short TV interview), I thought Rubio acquitted himself quite nicely. He came across as smart, reasoned, and articulate...and he did make a simple, but compelling case for the importance of limited government. I was struck, however, by one part of the interview that actually had nothing to do with Rubio. Part way through, the interviewer (and co-host of the show), Rebecca Diamond, posed a question that ostensibly went something like this...tell me your solutions for healthcare and the economy, but don't say tort reform or tax cuts. My immediate reaction was, huh?
As it so happens, Ms. Diamond and I are Facebook friends, so I immediately fired off a post to her wall, the gist of which was, you just asked Rubio the answer to 2+2, but told him not to respond with 4. I further commented that just because one side persistently demagogues a particular policy approach, it doesn't make that approach incorrect or unworthy of discussion. A more appropriate and effective line of questioning, I suggested, would have been to attempt to draw out more specific, fact-based examples that supported the proposed solutions. It does not strike me as media's role to dictate what are and are not reasonable answers, but rather to explore how someone arrives at such conclusions, and if they fully understand their consequences. For the record, I believe the answers Ms. Diamond disallowed are just parts of the ultimate solutions (which I've detailed in previous blog entries).
Let me add that I have a good deal of respect for Ms. Diamond. I've found her to be diligent about being balanced, and I like her "every person" approach to issues. She doesn't get caught in the trap of querying to impress people with her knowledge, but rather poses questions that are on the minds of most regular people. She's also very responsive—replied to my wall post almost immediately after the show. Impressive. I have a different take on one of her co-hosts, Cody Willard. I may share those thoughts/experiences in a separate blog entry.
The situation does highlight how GOP policy prescriptions have been caricatured by opponents and the media, and how inept the Republicans have been at explaining why their approaches are relevant to all socioeconomic classes.
No denying the Democrats are hurting themselves more than a goth teenager at a piercing party, but the Republicans need to make their message more coherent and convincing if they're going to seal the deal in a big way in 2010 and 2012...and have a legitimate mandate to govern.
Marco Rubio could very well be a piece of that puzzle.
That brings me to today's topic—this evening's edition of Happy Hour on the Fox Business Network. I was particularly interested to watch because one of the guests was Marco Rubio, the attractive, young conservative U.S. Senatorial candidate from Florida. Rubio, a former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, is vying for the Republican Senatorial nomination against Charlie Crist. Crist, of course, has been in the national spotlight for some time as Florida's governor, and, to the chagrin of fiscal conservatives, for his recent support of cap and trade, as well as the $787 billion "stimulus."
Although it was initially assumed that Crist would run away with the nomination, several curious policy choices, including the aforementioned two, have made the situation much less certain. Rubio has become the darling of the limited government crowd, and, is rising rapidly in the polls. I was intrigued to see whether or not he could express his ideas clearly and concisely, and if he is as substantive and innovative as his record seems to indicate.
Given the format (i.e. a relatively short TV interview), I thought Rubio acquitted himself quite nicely. He came across as smart, reasoned, and articulate...and he did make a simple, but compelling case for the importance of limited government. I was struck, however, by one part of the interview that actually had nothing to do with Rubio. Part way through, the interviewer (and co-host of the show), Rebecca Diamond, posed a question that ostensibly went something like this...tell me your solutions for healthcare and the economy, but don't say tort reform or tax cuts. My immediate reaction was, huh?
As it so happens, Ms. Diamond and I are Facebook friends, so I immediately fired off a post to her wall, the gist of which was, you just asked Rubio the answer to 2+2, but told him not to respond with 4. I further commented that just because one side persistently demagogues a particular policy approach, it doesn't make that approach incorrect or unworthy of discussion. A more appropriate and effective line of questioning, I suggested, would have been to attempt to draw out more specific, fact-based examples that supported the proposed solutions. It does not strike me as media's role to dictate what are and are not reasonable answers, but rather to explore how someone arrives at such conclusions, and if they fully understand their consequences. For the record, I believe the answers Ms. Diamond disallowed are just parts of the ultimate solutions (which I've detailed in previous blog entries).
Let me add that I have a good deal of respect for Ms. Diamond. I've found her to be diligent about being balanced, and I like her "every person" approach to issues. She doesn't get caught in the trap of querying to impress people with her knowledge, but rather poses questions that are on the minds of most regular people. She's also very responsive—replied to my wall post almost immediately after the show. Impressive. I have a different take on one of her co-hosts, Cody Willard. I may share those thoughts/experiences in a separate blog entry.
The situation does highlight how GOP policy prescriptions have been caricatured by opponents and the media, and how inept the Republicans have been at explaining why their approaches are relevant to all socioeconomic classes.
No denying the Democrats are hurting themselves more than a goth teenager at a piercing party, but the Republicans need to make their message more coherent and convincing if they're going to seal the deal in a big way in 2010 and 2012...and have a legitimate mandate to govern.
Marco Rubio could very well be a piece of that puzzle.
Chuck - good remarks about the media. I never really thought about it- but the role of the media is to find out "why". And good for you for taking action; so many are simply complaining observers. I will watch Rubio more closely now; want to see if he could be the one.
Reply to this