Let’s quit calling these silly spectacles “debates”
April 17th, 2008 at 08:07pm Pat Cunningham
Back in the day, before I knew better than to participate in such nonsense, I occasionally served on panels in candidate debates.
I performed this dubious service in races for the U.S. Senate and House, the governorship of Illinois, the state legislature and various local offices.
But one day it suddenly occurred to me that I was thereby making myself party to a charade, and I have since declined all such invitations.
I grew tired of the preening journalists like me asking questions calculated more to make us look smart or tough than to elicit information that might actually be useful to voters. And I hated the formats with their time limits and their gongs to be sounded when the limits were violated.
Besides, these exercises weren’t really debates. They were parallel news conferences. As often as not, they didn’t reveal the candidates’ real priorities or their views on certain matters of great interest to sizable segments of the electorate. And they almost never involved frank, unfiltered exchanges between the candidates.
All of this comes to mind in light of the debacle aired on ABC last night and in anticipation of the coming 150th anniversary of the historic Lincoln-Douglas debate in Freeport.
Honest Abe and the Little Giant didn’t need show-offy journalists or rigid formats to help them engage in worthy discourse on the issues of the day. They just took turns having their say.
Wouldn’t it be great, once the general-election campaign for the presidency begins in earnest, to have the Republican and Democratic candidates meet on regular occasions for honest-to-God debates without interference from the insufferable TV celebrities?
A moderator would serve, if at all, just to break up clinches. Otherwise, the candidates would set their own agendas and ask their own questions of each other. You wouldn’t need the participation of self-important eminences like Tim Russert or Charlie Gibson, who would just screw things up anyway.
Viewers would decide for themselves whether the candidates took too much time or were evasive in responding to questions. It would behoove the candidates, without interference from media luminaries, to behave themselves and display some grace.
So how about it? Let’s you and I and the rest of America meet up with John McCain and (probably) Barack Obama in Freeport on Aug. 27 for a truly worthwhile celebration of the Lincoln-Douglas sesquicentennial.
Entry Filed under: Lincoln-Douglas debates
13 Comments Add your own
1. Kaus | April 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
The problem with this approach is that instead of celebrities asking questions, Hillary would still ask Obama questions regarding flag pins, relationships with terrorist English Teachers from Shimer College, and attending churches with white-jew-hating-america-hating preachers. In addition, only trial lawyers need apply because they always win debates.
2. Menlo Bob | April 18th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Let’s have affirmative action for presidential candidates. We’ll just assume that skin color allows reporters to not dig too deep into a candidate’s past. Save the tough questions for the white guys.
3. Pat Cunningham | April 18th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Bob: You’re so well-informed. You’ve noticed that reporters haven’t dug into Obama’s past. There hasn’t been a word on his childhood, his roots, his education. They’re giving this guy a complete pass. And there haven’t been any stupid rumors about him being a Muslim. And nobody’s said anything about his church or his pastor. It’s always good to hear from people like you who stay right on top of current events. What color is your skin, Bob? Let me guess.
4. Pat Cunningham | April 18th, 2008 at 7:50 am
By the way, Kaus, who are you calling a “white-jew-hating-america-hating preacher”? You’re getting confused again, aren’t you, Kaus? Is the preacher to whom you refer white? Does he hate white Jews? What about black Jews? Does he hate Americans who hate white Jews? You’ve been listening to right-wing radio again, haven’t you? I’m telling you, that stuff causes brain damage.
5. Kaus | April 18th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I promised in past posts not to bring up Rev. Wright. Don’t make me bring up the WELL DOCUMENTED backgound of his anti-zionist, anti American, and anti white sentiment. Hillary has challenged Obama on all these topics, so don’t just blame right wing talk radio.
6. Pat Cunningham | April 18th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Kaus: How come you’re not as obsessed with the hate-filled rhetoric of McCain’s pal, the Rev. John Hagee? Is it because he’s a white evangelical? As for Hillary’s attacks on Obama regarding the Rev. Wright, every time she (or anybody else) brings up that crap, Obama goes higher in the polls. Methinks most Americans are tired of hearing about it.
7. Mike Carroll | April 18th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Uh, just a thought but perhaps its because John McCain hasn’t been sitting in Hagee’s church for the last 20 years.
8. Pat Cunningham | April 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Ah, but McCain went out of his way to get an endorsement from this nutcase.
9. Mike Carroll | April 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I think that’s an apples oranges argument.
Here is my take on all of this-
I am willing to give Obama the benefit of a doubt on Wright although he had to know about the more incendiary sermons. I would have left that church or told Wright he was off base but that’s me.
I am willing to give Obama the benefit of a doubt on the bittergate controversy although I think that is what he truly feels. I don’t think there is malice in the man.
I am willing to give him the benefit of a doubt on William Ayres.
I am willing to give him the benefit of a doubt on the nuttier comment that his wife has made.
BUT-I am getting to the point where there is a cumulative effect on the multiple “benefit of a doubts’ listed where, if I were an independent, it would certainly make me question his judgement and wonder if maybe he doesn’t need a bit more experience.
10. Mike Carroll | April 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Edit-Comment should be plural re his wife above.
11. Kaus | April 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Pat, going back to the very beginning of this chain:
1. Your idea of a debate with no intermediary press was a wonderful topic. But your idea is flawed. The candidates will bring up this naughty stuff (that you claim is uninteresting and irrelevent only because it is YOUR candidate getting hit)
2. I don’t want to revisit Jeremiah WRONG. But Mike is RIGHT….the company Obama keeps is a character flaw/pattern.
3. I’m sure the topic of Pipe Bombs must have come up once or twice at the board meetings with his buddy Ayres
12. Pat Cunningham | April 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Kaus: Replies in order: 1) Candidates who belabor non-issues in a debate do so at their own political peril; witness the fact that Hillary lost ground because of her ridiculous performance Tuesday night; 2) There is nothing out there to suggest that Obama is of anything but high character; I’ve known scads of radicals and weirdos over the years, but I’m not responsible for their thoughts, actions and rhetoric; admit it, Kaus, you get a major woody over this Rev. Wright stuff; you love it; 3) Your third comment is just stupid.
13. Kaus | April 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
1. Good point. Hillary is your number 2 candidate that you would still vote for?
2. People are judged by the friends they hang around. Pat, if you ever write a book and mention someone that is like a father to you…what does YOU think it means. And yes, I find the Rev. Wright thing real hilarious….since I’m an ” evil white man”
3. My third comment had a little smiley face…meaning I was not to be taken seriously. But it is typical…English Teacher = ex-terrorist who thinks blowing people up is cool
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed