For the time being, at least, nobody in America, except the desperate Clinton campaign, seems to want a rerun of last week's degrading boobfest.
Today North Carolina Democrats cancelled a scheduled CBS go-round next weekend with unusual political frankness: "While there was great interest in the debate, there were also growing concerns about what another debate would do to party unity."
In the New Yorker, under the title, "Bitter Patter," Hendrik Hertzberg sums up the fiasco:
"Last Wednesday’s two-hour televised smackdown in Philadelphia between the two remaining Democratic candidates for President, which might have been billed as the Élite Treat v. the Boilermaker Belle, turned into something worse—-something akin to a federal crime. Call it the case of the Walt Disney Company v. People of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (and of the United States, for that matter). Seldom has a large corporation so heedlessly inflicted so much civic damage in such a short space of time."
At the beginning of this interminable campaign, there was my hope that voters might be compensated for the agony by a modern version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with candidates getting beyond sound bites to discuss the issues at length.
Silly me. I should have known that, given the gatekeepers of our popular culture today, the candidate exchanges would end up closer to actual biting.
Showing posts with label Presidential debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential debates. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Flummoxing the Candidates
On the New York Times blog, The Caucus, Matt Bai has a solution to enlivening the Presidential debates, suggesting reverse psychology:
"Instead of making it harder for candidates to lapse into their stump speeches, we should make it easier for them by choosing the world’s most ignorant moderator, thus confusing the candidates and causing them to practically explode from excitement."
The questions he suggests are priceless.
"Instead of making it harder for candidates to lapse into their stump speeches, we should make it easier for them by choosing the world’s most ignorant moderator, thus confusing the candidates and causing them to practically explode from excitement."
The questions he suggests are priceless.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
New Kind of Presidential Debate
Would you rather see the candidates grilled by Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer or a snowman and a gun nut cradling his "baby," a semi-automatic weapon?
Close call, but isn't there an alternative? The question is prompted by Paul Krugman's column after this week's Democratic debate, claiming Barack Obama was "a sucker" for signing on to fears that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" that will go bankrupt before Baby Boomers can collect what's due them.
Most voters, it's fair to say, would like to know who's blowing smoke here--politicians or dueling economists--but we're not likely to find out from sound-bite answers to ignorant questions.
In our treasured but messy democracy, there is room for college girls to ask Hillary Clinton about diamonds and pearls but so far not for informed political scientists, historians and economists to ask knowledgeable questions that could show us who really understands the issues.
At the end of this month, CNN will give us Republican hopefuls being discomfited by cutesy YouTubers, a spectacle that will undoubtedly produce entertaining insights into how well the candidates handle social embarrassment.
But if we want to know what they know about issues that will affect our lives when one of them takes the oath, couldn't there be at least one debate in which they face those talking heads the networks trot out only on election night to give us perspective on what's been going on or at other times we only hear on PBS?
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but total ignorance, as we know only too well from recent experience, can be disastrous. Along with the snowman and Chris Matthews, can't we have at least one debate with questions from Krugman and his academic peers of various political persuasions?
We should be willing to take the risk of being bored to death to try to avoid being governed by morons.
Close call, but isn't there an alternative? The question is prompted by Paul Krugman's column after this week's Democratic debate, claiming Barack Obama was "a sucker" for signing on to fears that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" that will go bankrupt before Baby Boomers can collect what's due them.
Most voters, it's fair to say, would like to know who's blowing smoke here--politicians or dueling economists--but we're not likely to find out from sound-bite answers to ignorant questions.
In our treasured but messy democracy, there is room for college girls to ask Hillary Clinton about diamonds and pearls but so far not for informed political scientists, historians and economists to ask knowledgeable questions that could show us who really understands the issues.
At the end of this month, CNN will give us Republican hopefuls being discomfited by cutesy YouTubers, a spectacle that will undoubtedly produce entertaining insights into how well the candidates handle social embarrassment.
But if we want to know what they know about issues that will affect our lives when one of them takes the oath, couldn't there be at least one debate in which they face those talking heads the networks trot out only on election night to give us perspective on what's been going on or at other times we only hear on PBS?
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but total ignorance, as we know only too well from recent experience, can be disastrous. Along with the snowman and Chris Matthews, can't we have at least one debate with questions from Krugman and his academic peers of various political persuasions?
We should be willing to take the risk of being bored to death to try to avoid being governed by morons.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Not Taking the Bait as a Winning Strategy
Fred Thompson is bringing something new to the ’08 Presidential scramble, and it may just work.
The former Senator/actor is raising cool to an art form and, at a time, when voters are hearing too much from too many, his detachment has lifted him to the top of the Republican polls and may just keep him there.
Take, for example, his demurral to participating in the Values Voter crowd scene next Monday:
“Debates are important, but let's don't let the tail wag the dog here. Standing up there 10 in a row, you know, like a bunch of seals waiting for someone to throw you the next fish is not necessarily the best way to impart your information to the American people. I'm not above acting like a seal every once in a while and waiting for the next fish. I just don't want to do it all the time."
On the campaign trail, Thompson keeps sniffing at some of the fish and finding them too stale. Yesterday, when he has asked about the Terri Schiavo case, pushed by his fellow Tennessean Dr. Bill Frist, he declined to bite.
"I can't pass judgment on it.” he said. “I know that good people were doing what they thought was best. That's going back in history. I don't remember the details."
Staying out of the race until this month was a winning strategy. Now that he is in it, Thompson as a campaigner is doing the next best thing. Playing off the eagerness of Giuliani, Romney and McCain may be just the ticket to success.
The former Senator/actor is raising cool to an art form and, at a time, when voters are hearing too much from too many, his detachment has lifted him to the top of the Republican polls and may just keep him there.
Take, for example, his demurral to participating in the Values Voter crowd scene next Monday:
“Debates are important, but let's don't let the tail wag the dog here. Standing up there 10 in a row, you know, like a bunch of seals waiting for someone to throw you the next fish is not necessarily the best way to impart your information to the American people. I'm not above acting like a seal every once in a while and waiting for the next fish. I just don't want to do it all the time."
On the campaign trail, Thompson keeps sniffing at some of the fish and finding them too stale. Yesterday, when he has asked about the Terri Schiavo case, pushed by his fellow Tennessean Dr. Bill Frist, he declined to bite.
"I can't pass judgment on it.” he said. “I know that good people were doing what they thought was best. That's going back in history. I don't remember the details."
Staying out of the race until this month was a winning strategy. Now that he is in it, Thompson as a campaigner is doing the next best thing. Playing off the eagerness of Giuliani, Romney and McCain may be just the ticket to success.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Will Fred Thompson Close the Gaffe Gap?
When he announces tomorrow, the former Senator/actor will start with a clean slate in the hoof-in-mouth department. His Republican opponents have had six months to say stupid things, and they have made the most of them.
Rudy Giuliani had to back off telling Barbara Walters that his wife would attend cabinet meetings and, more recently, his claim to have spent more time at 9/11 Ground Zero than the firefighters.
Mitt Romney has been so busy that Ana Marie Cox on her Time blog had to expand his Top Ten Gaffes to eleven, including the easily disproved claim to have been a hunter all his life, attributing a Castro slogan to Free-Cuba fighters in front of audience of them, misstating French marriage laws, and making an admiring statement about Hitler’s energy policy, among so many others.
If Newt Gingrich decides to run, the floodgates of flubs would overflow.
But Thompson has the potential to catch up. He will no doubt ace his Jay Leno interview this week, but when he has to start defending his positions and his resume, Thompson’s tendency to be casual about such subjects as invading Iran is sure to emerge.
There will be ample opportunities to botch answers about his lobbying for a pro-abortion group, deposed Haitian autocrat Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a company trying to limit payments to asbestos victims as well as corporations producing a taxpayer-financed $1.7 billion “hole in the ground” for an abandoned nuclear reactor in Tennessee.
His private life could be fertile ground as well. Thompson has made light of his avid “chasing” as a bachelor but some of the ladies may surface to provoke uncomfortable questions.
His campaign has intimated his young wife is a lawyer and experienced political operative, but a closer look at the facts suggests a simpler story line: They met at a Tennessee barbecue, and she followed him to Washington where he got her a job. She did work in a law office but not as a lawyer.
Fred Thompson’s long teaser non-campaign has raised high expectations, but starting next week, he will only be the tallest of the Republican pygmies trying to play Ronald Reagan and make voters forget George Bush.
Rudy Giuliani had to back off telling Barbara Walters that his wife would attend cabinet meetings and, more recently, his claim to have spent more time at 9/11 Ground Zero than the firefighters.
Mitt Romney has been so busy that Ana Marie Cox on her Time blog had to expand his Top Ten Gaffes to eleven, including the easily disproved claim to have been a hunter all his life, attributing a Castro slogan to Free-Cuba fighters in front of audience of them, misstating French marriage laws, and making an admiring statement about Hitler’s energy policy, among so many others.
If Newt Gingrich decides to run, the floodgates of flubs would overflow.
But Thompson has the potential to catch up. He will no doubt ace his Jay Leno interview this week, but when he has to start defending his positions and his resume, Thompson’s tendency to be casual about such subjects as invading Iran is sure to emerge.
There will be ample opportunities to botch answers about his lobbying for a pro-abortion group, deposed Haitian autocrat Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a company trying to limit payments to asbestos victims as well as corporations producing a taxpayer-financed $1.7 billion “hole in the ground” for an abandoned nuclear reactor in Tennessee.
His private life could be fertile ground as well. Thompson has made light of his avid “chasing” as a bachelor but some of the ladies may surface to provoke uncomfortable questions.
His campaign has intimated his young wife is a lawyer and experienced political operative, but a closer look at the facts suggests a simpler story line: They met at a Tennessee barbecue, and she followed him to Washington where he got her a job. She did work in a law office but not as a lawyer.
Fred Thompson’s long teaser non-campaign has raised high expectations, but starting next week, he will only be the tallest of the Republican pygmies trying to play Ronald Reagan and make voters forget George Bush.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Fred Thompson Signs for Fox Reality Show
The suspense is over. Fred Thompson will not be running for the Republican nomination. Instead he will star in a new reality show this fall for the Fox Network, “Presidential Survivor,” in which the former Senator/actor will play a candidate and simulate all the drama and color of a real campaign--making stump speeches, issuing position papers and debating real candidates in guest appearances.
“After studying all the options,” Thompson announced today, “I have decided I can best serve my country, not by seeking the Highest Office but by giving the American public a true picture of what they should be looking for in a President and how.”
By signing for the series, Thompson will avoid the rigors of campaign travel, fund-raising and having Mrs. Thompson keep firing staff members. In addition, he will be able to collect residuals from re-runs of “Law and Order.”
If the ratings are high enough, Fox executives said, the series will run until next spring, at which point Thompson can decide whether to declare for the nomination in real life or sign up for another TV season.
“After studying all the options,” Thompson announced today, “I have decided I can best serve my country, not by seeking the Highest Office but by giving the American public a true picture of what they should be looking for in a President and how.”
By signing for the series, Thompson will avoid the rigors of campaign travel, fund-raising and having Mrs. Thompson keep firing staff members. In addition, he will be able to collect residuals from re-runs of “Law and Order.”
If the ratings are high enough, Fox executives said, the series will run until next spring, at which point Thompson can decide whether to declare for the nomination in real life or sign up for another TV season.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Hillary-Barack Face to Face
After Obama’s decision to curtail his role in the endless pseudo-debate schedule, how can the Democratic front runners give voters what they really need to decide who is best suited to clean up the Bush mess and lead the country forward?
Despite what polls show now, the choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be close and crucial, and the two of them have an opportunity to get beyond canned campaigning and set an example to offset the politics of personal destruction that decided the last two presidential elections.
They would be serving their country, their party and, ultimately, their own interests by using a fraction of the millions they have amassed to buy TV time for a real debate of their differences--no moderators, videos or other gimmicks--about the war in Iraq, health care, immigration policy and the tension between homeland security and individual rights, among other subjects.
Conventional wisdom might argue against Clinton’s doing it because she is ahead in the polls, but conventional wisdom has never encompassed a Presidential contest between a woman and a man of color.
Clinton and Obama are members of the same party who have more in common than the manufactured sound bites and campaign gotchas indicate, and they may very well end up on a ticket together.
Why not provide an example of grownup politics for a country exhausted by the idiocy of show-business campaigning? Why not show what politics can be rather than what it has become? Why not give their supporters--and all voters--a sample of the kind of change they want?
They don’t have to be Lincoln and Douglas but, amid all the
madness to come in the next fifteen months, Clinton and Obama could show us some sanity that would eventually serve them and all Americans well. At the very least, it would provide a contrast to the Republican mud fight that is sure to come.
Despite what polls show now, the choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be close and crucial, and the two of them have an opportunity to get beyond canned campaigning and set an example to offset the politics of personal destruction that decided the last two presidential elections.
They would be serving their country, their party and, ultimately, their own interests by using a fraction of the millions they have amassed to buy TV time for a real debate of their differences--no moderators, videos or other gimmicks--about the war in Iraq, health care, immigration policy and the tension between homeland security and individual rights, among other subjects.
Conventional wisdom might argue against Clinton’s doing it because she is ahead in the polls, but conventional wisdom has never encompassed a Presidential contest between a woman and a man of color.
Clinton and Obama are members of the same party who have more in common than the manufactured sound bites and campaign gotchas indicate, and they may very well end up on a ticket together.
Why not provide an example of grownup politics for a country exhausted by the idiocy of show-business campaigning? Why not show what politics can be rather than what it has become? Why not give their supporters--and all voters--a sample of the kind of change they want?
They don’t have to be Lincoln and Douglas but, amid all the
madness to come in the next fifteen months, Clinton and Obama could show us some sanity that would eventually serve them and all Americans well. At the very least, it would provide a contrast to the Republican mud fight that is sure to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)