how insiders supposedly view Question Time

[Micah Sifry]

I'm curious what people think of this and how, if at all, we should factor these judgments into our ongoing efforts.
Micah

National Journal, Feb 6:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/ip_20100206_9507.php

Q: Would your party benefit from another televised session between President Obama and Hill Republicans?

Democrats (96 votes)

Yes 82%
No  15%

Volunteered: No impact, 3 percent.

Yes

"Anytime the debate becomes a choice between our ideas and theirs, we win. Anytime it becomes a defense solely of our plan, we lose."

"The president might have more trouble with the House Democrats than he did with the Republicans."

"It benefits President Obama more, but it helped Republicans on the margins."

"Have several: Obama comes off as in touch and knowledgeable, while the Republicans come off as political."

"There was a reason Fox News cut away from the live feed."

"Every time he is seen reaching out and trying to work with Republicans, it reassures independents. Now, if only the speaker would learn that lesson."

"The contrast between Obama talking to the nation and Republicans talking to the 'tea party' is wonderful."

"He appears as a leader and willing to reach across the aisle and get something done."

"Continue with meetings because Democrats need to continue to call Republicans on their 'Say no' approach to governing. Also, there is no Republican able to hold his or her own in a debate with this president."

"The speeches, while beautifully delivered, may have run their course. But one-on-one, the contrast between the president putting forth practical solutions and the Republicans' bleating and posturing becomes clear."

"Anytime Peyton Manning can operate against a high school defense, it's good for Peyton Manning."

"Can we do it in prime time, please?"

No

"Any further public meetings will make him look weak to his base, which really needs to be ignited, and allow the GOP an unwarranted opportunity to appear conciliatory, which they are not."

"Going once and winning on substance and style was presidential. Going more than once gets ordinary quickly and diminishes the president."

"Democrats won round one. Why do a second?"

Q: Would your party benefit from another televised session between President Obama and Hill Republicans?

Republicans (97 votes)

Yes 46%
No  52%

Volunteered: No impact, 2 percent.

Yes

"Rather than being the 'Party of No,' Republicans came across as thoughtful, substantive, and respectful toward the president."

"Another session would help, as GOPers would be prepared for TV coverage and perform better. That's why Obama will not do it again."

"But only if they get Obama off the podium, down on their level, and make it about policy solutions, not just a gripe session."

"Anytime Obama has to fly without his TelePrompTer pacifier, it reveals his petulant side."

"Next time, though, moderate members should do the talking."

"Republicans need a stage and a smile -- not a smirk."

"It gives the GOP stature to be in the arena with the president. Without that, they are just a party bereft of ideas and an agenda."

No

"It was a stupid decision to allow the Q&A to be televised. Obama wiped the floor. We are still not that good at messaging. I think our leaders start to believe their own press releases. We are the same party the voters rejected in '06 and '08."

"Talking policy is the wrong move: Republicans just need to oppose President Obama."

"I think it makes Obama look good when he's willing to go into the lions' den and take them on."

"Attempting to be 'bipartisan' on TV is merely entertainment, not reality. Such theater helps President Obama, not our party."

"Obama's magic is overexposed and eroding, but he gained major points by reaching out."

"Whether GOP leadership gets it or not, we do not yet have a member or members capable of scoring significant points in this format."

"He's better at it than we are: Obama has the ability to make the Democrats appear reasonable; Reid and Pelosi do not. We want more of Reid and Pelosi."

"President Obama is magical on TV and looks reasonable. It's better to let Obama remain the left-of-center policy wonk."

They also asked prominent bloggers for their views:

Would Democrats benefit from another televised session between President Obama and Hill Republicans?	Would the GOP benefit from another televised session between President Obama and Hill Republicans?
Left-leaning (18 votes)	Right-leaning (14 votes)
Yes "Go with your strengths. Dems, Obama in particular, are good at extended arguments." Chris Bowers, Open Left "Democrats benefit because Obama can win these arguments. But, really, all Americans benefit, because it's rare that they get to see serious back-and-forth about important issues." David Kravitz, Blue Mass. Group "The optics of having 140 gang up on one and still lose control of the facts are so bad that I'm surprised the House GOP leadership fell into that trap." Steve Soto, The Left Coaster "Yes, but nowhere near as much as some of those getting all excited about 'Question Time' seem to think. The GOP isn't stupid, and it's only a matter of time (like next time) before they get smarter about who asks, what's asked, and how it's asked. Also, it's only a matter of time before the WH brain trust starts trying to script the events to theoretically maximize political hay-making -- this week's Q&A with Senate Dems serves as a tedious case in point." Gregg Levine, Firedoglake "Obama's recent charm offense seems aimed at winning back independents, and since that's the voting group he's losing, probably." Susie Madrak, Suburban Guerrilla "Well, they'd probably come up with some way to screw up the spin, but, sure, it couldn't hurt." Lee Papa, The Rude Pundit "It would not only benefit Democrats but the country for there to be more candid, forthright dialogue between Obama and the Republicans. It's time for some real bipartisanship, not just weak-kneed concessions from Democrats." Ellen Brodsky, News Hounds "Actually, I think everyone would benefit from more sessions like the recently televised GOP retreat. But it ain't gonna happen. The GOP has shown time and time again that it isn't really interested in a dialogue with the president. Plus, it makes them look bad." Tracy Viselli, Reno And Its Discontents "Because the Republicans believe their own hype -- after all, they hear Limbaugh and Beck parroting it every day -- that Obama's mental facilities don't go beyond reading a TelePrompTer, they wound up looking like a bunch of pouty, unruly first-graders. Presumably they wouldn't have a chimp like Mike Pence kick the event off next time but, who would they use? Patrick McHenry? Darrell Issa? Virginia Foxx? Mean Jean Schmidt? Ken Calvert? Paul Broun? Yeah... I nominate Broun!" Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! No "Why televise it unless the Dems want more partisanship? I thought the whole point was for the president to engage with the GOP on issues of common concern. It seems that if the klieg lights are on, it becomes a media circus. Maybe it would be better for a serious dialogue to occur in the West Wing or up on the Hill." Matt L. Barron, RuralVotes "The Republicans are clearly taking the short view, where Obama's (and consequently the nation's) failures are good for them. I'm not sure how more television exposure benefits Obama." Brian Leubitz, Calitics "He kicked their butts once, and if he goes back for more, the MSM will report that it shows weakness on his part. As for me, they don't deserve the opportunity to ask well-scripted questions that will make them sound like thoughtful politicians when in fact they scream that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are 'traitors' and 'socialists' every chance they get with no facts to support their claims." John Amato, Crooks And Liars "Theatre is nice, but Americans will be more motivated to vote for Democrats who pass bills that make their lives better, rather than simply highlighting the GOP's Party of Never 2010 electoral strategy. There's only so long you can play the victim card when you are in the majority." Dean Barker, Blue Hampshire	Yes "All Americans would benefit. All Republicans are Americans. Ergo, Republicans would benefit. The metric of success should not be partisan benefit, but rather national benefit." David Kopel, The Volokh Conspiracy "Each time the president faces House Republicans, he comes across as unimpressive. I can see nothing beneficial for the president if he continues to face off against his harshest critics unless he begins to agree with their criticisms and makes dramatic changes to his policies." J.R. Hoeft, Bearing Drift "Yes, as long as the questions are verifiable to be absolutely true and the answers by Obama miss the mark; feet must be held to the fire. Dodging must be outed." Skip Murphy, GraniteGrok No "Maybe; it's likely to help each side at different times if done regularly. GOP would benefit if they let their best people ask the questions -- Paul Ryan on economic policy, Pete King on homeland security, etc. Obama, while slippery, can get very prickly when challenged properly (see 2008's Philly debate and the Rick Warren forum). That said, the GOP benefits most when it can focus the public on what Obama does, not what he says." Dan McLaughlin, Baseball Crank "Not in that exact format where the president is lecturing. Perhaps if there were a series of debates. Paul Ryan on economic policy, someone else on foreign policy, etc." Soren Dayton, The Next Right "Why should they even bother giving him a platform? President 'I Won' showed no respect for the GOP for a whole year and his little performance was ripe with kabuki anger and outright lies. They should steer clear of him and let him sink on his own, rather than being identified with him in the slightest way." Robert Miller, JoshuaPundit "Obama grandstanding is a waste of everyone's time." Bruce Carroll Jr., GayPatriot

--
http://www.personaldemocracy.com
http://www.techpresident.com
http://micah.sifry.com
http://www.twitter.com/mlsif

[Mindy Finn]

I think this explains the weak showing of right-of-center petition signers.  As we speculated previously, most Republicans/conservatives did not see the initial session as politically helpful to Republicans. Thus, they are hesitant to call for more.

Some of this is probably a lighter embrace of "kumbaya" politics by the Right, but in defense of "my people," I think it's more about being in the minority and skeptical that the President and Democrats in Washington have pure intentions.

[Todd Gitlin]

Does anyone in politics ever have pure intentions?

-------

Todd Gitlin

Professor of Journalism and Sociology

and Chair, Ph. D. Program in Communications

Columbia University

The Journalism School

Room 201F

New York, NY  10027

Phone:  212-854-8124

Fax:  212-854-7837

E-mail:  tgi...@columbia.edu

www.toddgitlin.net

[Eli Pariser]

One of the reasons I like Question Time is that it's about building public conversations everyone across the political spectrum pays attention to. As opposed to the hermetically sealed environments of MSNBC and Fox.

So, as a twist on the core concept (and thinking about what would mobilize Republicans to be more enthusiastic) -- what if we called for two partisan TV hosts (e.g. Beck and Maddow) to interview Obama live, together, with the result broadcast on both channels?

Good ratings for each channel, good promotion for each host, fair time for each side, and a conversation that transcends the partisan echo chambers.

Crazy? 

[Jon Henke]

That sounds like it would be a lot of fun, and a major event.  But what are the odds the White House would allow an interview with Glenn Beck?   Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sorta skeptical that it would be possible to herd that many egos, businesses and political players.

-------------

Jon Henke

(202) 595-4323

[Ari Melber]

That's a program I'd like to watch, but it hardly seems like the optimal use of this coalition to go to bat for famous TV personalities that already have great leverage to get interviews with the President. Maddow and O'Reilly (who was once as controversial as Beck) netted interviews with Obama during the general election, and their respective employers routinely have great access to POTUS and the White House.

[Eli Pariser]

What I'm interested in going to bat for is the idea of a public discourse that involves both partisan wings -- an idea which may be not long for this world, but which I do actually think is important in a democracy. 

What seems interesting to me is the possibility of having the same conversation on Fox and MSNBC and the Internets at once -- rather than two totally disconnected ones. Is that not Question Time-y?

No? How about this as a sweetener: Beck + Maddow + citizen-driven questions.

[Ari Melber]

Citizen driven questions always sweeten it for me : )  I like the idea and would watch it, again, I'm just speaking more to whether this is the coalition/vehicle for it. But by all means, others can weigh in on that front....

[Micah Sifry]

How about if we got MoveOn and the Tea Party Patriots to do something together?

With a little assist from Ralph Benko, I had a very long and friendly conversation with Mark Meckler, co-coordinator of TPP, on Sunday. He personally likes the idea of Question Time and said he would take the idea of endorsing it to the coalition to see if they might.

Micah

[da...@aol.com]

That would make news. FYI, I did a posting on the Nat. Journal poll:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/dc-insiders-and-question-time

DC

[da...@aol.com]

I certainly would like to see such an event--with citizens and media involvement. But I think that's a harder sell. There is something more pure about the president mano a mano with the opposition, unfiltered and televised. I think it can even be expected, and there's the British model. Working out the specs for something else might be harder and distracting. Baltimore is a great model. I say replicate that and once it's going then consider spin-offs and improvements. (I guess this puts me in the Rahm camp of seeking smaller, more achievable policies!)
DC

-----Original Message-----
From: Ari Melber <ame...@gmail.com>
To: question...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 3:31 pm
Subject: Re: how insiders supposedly view Question Time

[Ari Melber]

David, I thought you were in the Rahm camp because you've been secretly giving the President all the perfect advice that would save America, if only he would take it.

(My last mass email of the day, promise.)