Third Party & Independents: Archives

Misha

Of course you are right, but we have to remember that Lincoln lost that election and only won the presidential election two years later by a plurality. Even a spirited debate doesn’t always favor the best candidate. One of the problems with elections has always been that many of the traits that make you a good candidate are not the same as those that make you a good leader and the ability to debate well is not always related to general intelligence. Thomas Jefferson evidently was one of the worst public speakers of his age.

The age of television has exacerbates the superficiality of elections. Lincoln could not get elected today because he is too funny looking and he had a history of mental illness. I think it would be nearly impossible for a bald man to get elected today, no matter what his qualifications. Any little flaws are magnified. I am not a Kerry supporter, but I do recognize that some of his problems have nothing to do with his polices, but result rather from his appearance and demeanor. He looks like Lurch on the “Adam’s Family” and that overcomes much of his message. Bush has a problem with a smirk.

Why do the candidates talk in sound bites? Because they know that anything they say might be taken out of context and repeated endlessly, usually accompanied by threatening sounding music and gritty black and white pictures. Only a stream of sound bites will ensure that they can make their point no matter what part of the speech is excerpted.

Precisely why Open Debates tried to offer a bi-partisan alternative that would have supported and sanctioned REAL debate, instead of the bipartisan Commission for Pres. Debates organization whose sole purpose is to protect their candidates from the issues, NOT inform the public of their positions and abilities.

Last I heard, neither Kerry or Bush would assent to Open Debates.

The problem with this presidentail debate will be exactly how the questions are worded. With only a minute and a half to respond to your opponent’s answer provides the moderator the ability to screw a candidate by asking certain questions which will require a normal explanation.

For example, the moderator asks Bush the following; “Mr. President, you have stated publicly that Iraq is doing better today than under Saddam?” Of course Bush will answer yes and explain about the schools, etc. Than Kerry will be asked to respond so he’ll say “Yes, but what about this and that.” The media than can spin Kerry’s answer to make people believe that Kerry is against the removable of Saddam.

No these debates will only lead to more bashing by each party. What America needs to do is what we are doing here today. Debate the questions ourselve and compare them with the answers given by the candidates.

Last I heard, neither Kerry or Bush would assent to Open Debates.

Section 1(d) The parties agree that they will not (1) issue any challenges for additional debates, (2) appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential candidate, or (3) accept any television or radio air time offers that involve a debate format or otherwise involve the simultaneous appearance of more than one candidate.

It is perhaps a sad testimony on our sound-bite society that the electorate will not sit still for a Lincoln-Douglas type debate between Bush and Kerry, though I would certainly like to see such a debate. Such a complex and nuanced debate would be lost on most who have never understood the many layers of their own democracy, and would be hard pressed to understand it. I say this not to be mean-spirited or belittling, but in an effort to confront the truth of the matter.

The MOU between the two candidates concerning the debates only adds fuel to my burning fire of thought that most people are dullards who would just assume not to have to think, because it is far too hard. So why bother to have a real debate on the issues? And most are rewarded for their efforts by the continued “dummying” down of our society in order to cater to their misuse of their brains. My wife is reading a book about the over sensitive person, and one section exclaims that only 15% of the population is pre-disposed to be critical thinkers.

Laziness of thought and apathy towards society in general are becoming trademarks of the average American. Perhaps we as a people have become far too “safe.” I believe humans need to struggle in order to remain on the edge of thought, ever pushing the envelope of personal intellectual development. It is all part and partial of what is wrong with America.

It is now hip to be mediocre; indeed it is celebrated, and the intellectual is ridiculed as elitists, instead of lauded for using the gifts God gave us. It (slothful thinking) is a virus that infects every aspect of our society, and it will mean our doom in the end. It’s the reason why, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary 45% of American still believes that there is a link between Saddam and 9/11; it is far easier to be spoon fed, then to actually think and do a little research to uncover the truth. Ignorance is bliss, and reflective thought require far more work then most Americans are willing to do!

Having said the forgoing I will watch the debates whilst clipping coupons, hopeful that something new, something insightful, something unexpected will be said…

David:

There is an additional factor involved in the debate issue. Debates are typically more advantageous for the candidate behind in the polls. That candidate has much to gain, while the other candidate has much to lose.

Most candidates who are behind are pushing hard for more debates and for more open debates. If Bush had an unsurpassable lead, we might see no debates. Same if Kerry were in that position.

Perhaps the debates should be set up in advance of the campaigns, and both parties (and other parties as well) should lay out the debate rules ahead of time. Of course, a current candidate could simply say no to the rules made up by his predecessors in that situation.

I do think, however, that we have enough information on both candidates to assess their positions. In the past, months and months of coverage were not the norm…now we are inundated with information. Its possible that the overload of information makes it even harder to make a decision for some.

I’m not that interested in the debates—-I doubt I will hear anything that changes the perceptions I have formed by educating myself on the candidate’s positions. The debates are kind of like a smaller convention: lots of excitement, lots of dancing around, lots of commentary from candidates and pundits, and absolutely nothing new.

V. Edward,

I agree with your comments, and share your dismay over the direction the country is taking intellectually.
You wrote:
“I will watch the debates whilst clipping coupons, hopeful that something new, something insightful, something unexpected will be said…”

I’m kind of hoping Kerry will break the rules tonight, and politely yet directly spring an unexpected question on Dubya. After all, why should the president ever be exempted from having questions asked of him? If this happened, it would definitely make things a lot more interesting.

Does anyone here know why the League of Women Voters stopped being the ones to conduct the debates? I wish they would start doing so again, because ever since they stopped, the proceedings have become nothing more than a press conference.

Does anyone here know why the League of Women Voters stopped being the ones to conduct the debates?

Televised Debate History

Sponsors of 1976, 1980, and 1984 presidential debates, the League of Women Voters, in 1988 the League of Women Voters decided not to sponsor the second presidential debate. The LWV considered itself to be an objective third party in the negotiating of debate formats. According to the article, “the League’s board of trustees voted during the weekend to pull out of the Los Angeles debate because the Bush and Dukakis camp refused to renegotiate the terms of their agreement - the result of weeks of arduous talks - with League representatives.” The LWV’s withdrawal opened the door for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has sponsored the presidential debates ever since.

Misha, I agree wholeheartedly with your piece. I think it is farcical, yet says so much about the flaws in the political system, that these people choose to shirk their responsibilities to the democratic society they wish to lead.

But you know, who cares about transparency, lets ensure they don’t have to think too hard.

The “memorandum of understand” might only be 32 pages long but it speaks volumes about the decay of American democracy.

Thanks for answering my question, Joseph.

I don’t see why they were ever allowed to negotiate terms in the first place. Seems rather cowardly to me that presidential contenders wouldn’t be willing to just take any question presented to them and try to do their best with it. After all the question and answer sessions they do while campaigning, you would think they’d be more than up to that task.
Also, I don’t understand how it ever became a case of having to get them to _agree_ to participate in these debates. If presidential candidates don’t immediately understand what a great opportunity it is to get free air-time on TV to talk about their ideas and goals, then they probably aren’t intelligent or (as in the case of setting “terms”) gutsy enough to handle the job as president.

Misha:

Here is the conclusion of an article from Yahoo! News which goes along with your text.

“The debates were staged under a rigid set of rules negotiated by the candidates’ representatives to limit spontaneity and opportunities for back-and-forth exchanges.”

Heaven help us if the leaders of our nation show spontaneity.

No prob, Adrienne.

I actually think the debates have some potential for surprises. And it’s not like the rest of the election campaign process isn’t a circus, too. Sure, it’s sad that our great nation must suffer facile media-driven discourse as a means to policy but thems the breaks.

The world is on fire and the media offers us marshmallows.

Adrienne:

It would be great if the candidates would simply take any and all questions, and actually answer them. But the risk for them is great, which is why they don’t do it. A single misstep can blow an entire campaign to pieces.

Remember Dukakis in his goofy tank helmet? That is one of the enduring pictures from a long campaign. It was rather insignificant, really, but its the vision that endures. Has anyone forgotten the caustic knife that Lloyd Bentsen wielded on Dan Quayle (I knew Jack Kennedy…. you are no Jack Kennedy). Again, just a moment from a long campaign, but a crystalline moment that endures.

Who wouldn’t want every detail provisioned for? After all, this public is so finicky and consumed with vanity as to denounce Al Gore based on him “sighing” too much. What’s next? “Bush stuttered too many times.” “I don’t like Kerry’s hair.” “Kerry’s wife is ugly.” This isn’t a debate, as Misha stated, it’s a beauty pageant.

Of course you are right, Misha.

But we do live in the age of TV. It’s an actor’s medium. The ability to appear poised is the key.

I have to say I enjoyed tonight’s debate. It was interesting to watch them exchange scripted sound bytes.

The truth is, though, I’m not sure lengthy oratories have much to do with being president either.

Maybe we could have presidential Stratego matchs!!