The Great Sedate - Part 3
What can possibly be added to an evening that has been analyzed, re-analyzed, parsed, dissected and given a post-mortem before the patient was even dead - not that it had much in the way of "signs of life" to begin with. Of course, we are referring to the final TV matchup between John McCain and Barack Obama, where instead of boring in on the Presidency, the two decided to bore the viewers.
We have no need for in depth analysis, we already know more than we want to about John McCain's blown zinger, Obama's Zen master cool, and Joe the Plumber (who at this point as provided more insight into the candidates than either candidate...). It was yet another night of retreaded sound bites and repeated fits of yawning. It did not serve the people of the United states in any way other than to damp some of the "excitement" we were supposed to be feeling during this "historic" election.
This has been a pet peeve at TPP through this entire election cycle - the so-called debates had no debating, and were little more than showcases for the candidates to spout off uninspired poll-driven responses with robotic like determination and passion. As many readers have commented over the course of the three and a half (the VP debate), it's not hard to feel put-off at what was brought before us, and maybe even a bit used. Since the current format advocated by the Commission on Presidential Debates serves us so poorly, we would like to recommend a method that may work better:
We propose a series of 4 one-hour forums, at which the candidates are allowed to present themselves, with the aid and prompting of the moderator. The moderator would be the first change - the Lehrers and Brokaws of the world are particularly unsuited to this task. We recommend Billy Mays (yes, the guy from OxiClean and OrangeGlo). What better man for the task of building up a little excitement and interest about a forum as dull as watching paint dry. And we will let Billy be Billy - just run the whole production as the infomercial that it is. Let Billy promote the claimed values of each candidate, and then open it up to the candidates to demonstrate those values. Use the audience - "Mr McCain - you're gonna cut taxes? How much less will Lucy Smith, right here, pay?" "and Mr. Obama - same question?" -- "Tough on Iran - exactly what sanctions do you have in mind? Name them - and what happens if they fail?" -- "Out of Iraq - Great - What do you do if the country falls apart? No, seriously, answer the question." -- "Since both of you sent your children to private school, how can we believe anything you say about public education?" Get in their face, do follow up and no canned answers. Just as OxiClean turns those dull brownish drapes bright white, we get a demonstration of the candidate's skills. Allow audience response - cheers and jeers. Audience members will be selected by lottery out of the American public, and flown in at the expense of the campaigns - no VIPs or party people except by golden ticket. TV time will be paid for by the campaigns - rate will be the lowest available to commercial advertisers, but will not be free. If a third party candidate can raise the buy-in cash, he gets to join in - that was the only way real issues were injected into the 1992 debate. Should a candidate refuse to participate, use the portion of his time that he would be allowed to promote himself to examine his actual voting record, or past statements to answer posed questions. Include a call-in post debate poll for the TV viewership to declare a winner for each evening.
Does this seem too crass, or demeaning of the process? Is it really any lower than the name-calling, and non-answers that we as a public are subjected to now? Three Presidential debates were staged, and 1 Vice-Presidential. The candidates appeared at all venues, but no one can claim that they participated. All they did was to be polite to the viewers, and sit smugly with the moderator, knowing fully well that nothing important was going to happen. It had been agreed to in advance by the campaigns, and was condoned by the media - THAT is demeaning of the process. They should be ashamed.
RLB
We have no need for in depth analysis, we already know more than we want to about John McCain's blown zinger, Obama's Zen master cool, and Joe the Plumber (who at this point as provided more insight into the candidates than either candidate...). It was yet another night of retreaded sound bites and repeated fits of yawning. It did not serve the people of the United states in any way other than to damp some of the "excitement" we were supposed to be feeling during this "historic" election.
This has been a pet peeve at TPP through this entire election cycle - the so-called debates had no debating, and were little more than showcases for the candidates to spout off uninspired poll-driven responses with robotic like determination and passion. As many readers have commented over the course of the three and a half (the VP debate), it's not hard to feel put-off at what was brought before us, and maybe even a bit used. Since the current format advocated by the Commission on Presidential Debates serves us so poorly, we would like to recommend a method that may work better:
We propose a series of 4 one-hour forums, at which the candidates are allowed to present themselves, with the aid and prompting of the moderator. The moderator would be the first change - the Lehrers and Brokaws of the world are particularly unsuited to this task. We recommend Billy Mays (yes, the guy from OxiClean and OrangeGlo). What better man for the task of building up a little excitement and interest about a forum as dull as watching paint dry. And we will let Billy be Billy - just run the whole production as the infomercial that it is. Let Billy promote the claimed values of each candidate, and then open it up to the candidates to demonstrate those values. Use the audience - "Mr McCain - you're gonna cut taxes? How much less will Lucy Smith, right here, pay?" "and Mr. Obama - same question?" -- "Tough on Iran - exactly what sanctions do you have in mind? Name them - and what happens if they fail?" -- "Out of Iraq - Great - What do you do if the country falls apart? No, seriously, answer the question." -- "Since both of you sent your children to private school, how can we believe anything you say about public education?" Get in their face, do follow up and no canned answers. Just as OxiClean turns those dull brownish drapes bright white, we get a demonstration of the candidate's skills. Allow audience response - cheers and jeers. Audience members will be selected by lottery out of the American public, and flown in at the expense of the campaigns - no VIPs or party people except by golden ticket. TV time will be paid for by the campaigns - rate will be the lowest available to commercial advertisers, but will not be free. If a third party candidate can raise the buy-in cash, he gets to join in - that was the only way real issues were injected into the 1992 debate. Should a candidate refuse to participate, use the portion of his time that he would be allowed to promote himself to examine his actual voting record, or past statements to answer posed questions. Include a call-in post debate poll for the TV viewership to declare a winner for each evening.
Does this seem too crass, or demeaning of the process? Is it really any lower than the name-calling, and non-answers that we as a public are subjected to now? Three Presidential debates were staged, and 1 Vice-Presidential. The candidates appeared at all venues, but no one can claim that they participated. All they did was to be polite to the viewers, and sit smugly with the moderator, knowing fully well that nothing important was going to happen. It had been agreed to in advance by the campaigns, and was condoned by the media - THAT is demeaning of the process. They should be ashamed.
RLB
Posted by The Thomas Paine Project at 10/20/2008 7:11 AM 
Categories: Partisan Politics
Tags: presidential debates
Categories: Partisan Politics
Tags: presidential debates
As ideas go, this really doesn't raise the bar much on elevating the conversation, or bringing any dignity to the process. Can you picture Kennedy or Nixon in a format lke the one you suggest?
Reply to this
Neither Kennedy or Nixon would have needed to be prodded through answering questions on events of the day, or to clearly state their positions. Both current candidates live in such fear of making a gaffe, or having the polls shift that neither wants to stake out a firm position or even acknowledge facts. Forget Billy Mays bring on Jerry Springer!
Reply to this
The sad fact is that political campaigns have degraded into getting every candidate to appeal only to the broadest possible base. How can you lead, when you need to please EVERYONE? Obama is a master of it, and even McCain is succumbing to it. You can let Billy loose on them, but you can't beat leadership into someone.
Reply to this
I can support going after the candidates more aggresively. I don't think that you could put a number on the amount of times both candidates either did not acutually answer a direct question, or ignored it completley. You wouldn't get this kind of softball treatment on either Fox or MSNBC. The media needs to an arbiter for the people - not to engage in aiding and abetting the politicians in hoodwinking the country.
Reply to this
I dunno - Billy Mays or Jerry Springer - Are you sure that you want to give any politicians that kind of legitimacy?
Reply to this
I agree that there was very little drama, but what are you looking for - policy or entertainment. Obama set his policies out there in a calm reasonable manner. McCain was a little more erratic, but there's no doubt on where he stands on the issues either. Calling for Jerry Springer makes it seem like you want the debate to turn into a fistfight. That really does not speak to the dignity of anything, and sort of lowers us to the level of what we're complaining about.
Reply to this
Obama laid his views out well - he was clear, and when he was allowed, specific. McCain was the one coming across as a crazy old man, and throwing all of the dirt and accusations. If there are going to be rules, both sides need to obey them - that will raise the level of debate.
Reply to this
McCain wasn't throwing dirt - he was letting people in on the truth - and the truth only hurts when it's supposed to, which is why Obama whines about it so much. What is he going to do when Putin picks on him? Go crying back to Michelle?
Reply to this
You can't blame the candidates or the handlers for being extra careful - just one off the cuff remark taken out of context will cost you an election. Just ask Gerry Ford about Poland, or Mondale about taxes. It's not like there's any room for error - especially now with every small gathering a potential YouTube hit. As for the reporters, they have to go along if they want access later. You can't report news if you don't have access. We got what we needed from the debate - all governing is pretty boring. The only time it isn't is when someone screws up royally. Why should the debates be any different?
Reply to this
Looks like we got one from the dark side - defending the way it is. Is Dan Rather on hold?
Reply to this
We all want the West Wing to be real, but hey, IT'S A TV SHOW! It really can't happen that way in real life. Jed Bartlett is a fictional character - he can be as noble as we want him. McCain and Obama are real men with real faults. If you really want fiction rather than real life, then Martin Sheen would be president - and how screwed up would we be if that happened?
Reply to this
I'm confused. It sounds to me like after having eight years of Bush and his
"My way or the highway" attitude,that when two men can discuss policy differences without yelling or belittling the other, we should be grateful. That's what grown-ups do. It's been a reality show for eight years, I'd prefer some reality - with an actual adult in charge.
Reply to this
haileyw brings up a good point - we've had pretty rough politics going on since at least 2000, and probably back to 1996 (and the ascendancy of the Newt). Most of us are sounding like we miss it this time around. Do we really? Is it really about the gotchas and gaffes, or about policies and the direction of the country? While I agree there hasn't been much excitement, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. This is practical politics - less hysterical ideology - more getting things done. It woulld be good to see this type of engagement after the election, when the governing begins.
Reply to this
I don't think anyone is looking for a fistfight, though the gaffes are entertaining. And no, it's not Jed Bartlett, and most likely will never be. I think the one thing that's missing that people are looking for is a sense tha either man "gets" what's going on in America right now. Obama sits on his proffessorial perch above all of us mere mortals, and McCain is doing frantic battle with everything all at once. It's as if one is too unconnected to care, and the other too busy - regardless of the words they use. You had the feeling that Clinton understood - Reagan too - what life was like for us everyday people. Neither of these candidates do it really well. That's what I'm missing.
Reply to this
I really don't think that they are doing their best to communicate their positions to us - more often than not lately they stay on script to avoid a mistake, or evade followup questions demanding details. I'm especially upset at McCain who prided himself on his town hall meetings, and now gives those the same soundbiting that he gives the media. Okay, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you (as the MSM is for McCain), but acting paranoid just isn't Presidential at all. It just makes Obama look better.
Reply to this
Seems the only one getting any mileage out of this last debate is Joe the Plumber, and he's regretting it. There hasn't been so much interest in plumbers since the Nixon White House - enough already!
Reply to this
Maybe we should run Joe the Plumber for Prez - we already know more about how he REALLY feels about the big issues than either candidate, and the mainstream media has already given him a rectal. Palin and Obama both moot the experience point - really, how bad could it be?
Reply to this
Now there's a concept - average Joe runs the country like we run our households. Bank faiures - we help you keep the house you live in - if you can qualify for a mortgage and pay it. Specultors - you lose. Nuclear Iran - I don't think so - shut em down. Energy Indepndence - are we still talking about this? Do it! Just like the firefighter ad for Nextel - if only...
Reply to this
In theory that sounds great, but then I look at my neighbors and wince. We put the wrong guy in and instead of a functioning democracy, we wake up with Germany and Italy passed out in the living room, empty pizza boxes and beer bottles strewn about, and France in bed with Sweden in the Lincoln Bedroom. And while all of the fun was going on, Russia and Iran make off with the nuclear codes. I think I'll stick with the pros. Just get me to election day before I reconsider.
Reply to this
OMG - LMAO. Never dreamed of thinking that far out with the comment. You KNOW Britian wil be hosting the intervention.
Reply to this
Didn't we already do that during the Clinton years? Now that was a frat house.
Reply to this
Every president does questionable things, and I think an argument can be made that the W Adminstration did more than most. On balance, I think Clinton left us in better shape than Bush, but I don't see a purpose in belittling 8 mostly bad years. I'm just concentrating nmaking the next 4 better.
Reply to this
Looks like Biden is seeing the writing on his own wall right now - As of today he has a full media buy running over the whole state of Delaware to remind people to vote for him for Senator - I can only guess, just in case this Obama thing doesn't work out. Would this be a "rhetorical flourish" as Obama likes to call it, or just more of the truth slipping out by accident? Looks like Biden is for keeping America working - especially himself.
Reply to this
bagorocks is dead on - Biden for Senate is running commercials as much as Obama - Biden is. I'm just across the Del border and we're getting pummelled with our own races and theirs. From the frequency, intensity, and content (they look prety much like Obama ads) you'd think he either forgot he was running for VP, or had some inside info that Obama was going down in flames next Tuesday. I guess we'll see on Election Day
Reply to this
Wouldn't suprise me for Joe to be hedging his bet. There seems to be some growing creep in the polls with McCain pulling closer while Obama doesn't seem to be losing any ground. The odds of McCain picking up ALL of the undecideds are pretty long. There's been whispers and speculation out in the blogosphere that the Bradley / Wilder effect may have more traction than anyone wants to think. The other school of thought is that Obama's thin resume is starting to draw scrutiny as election day gets close. Maybe McCain had it right and experience will matter come Tuesday.
Reply to this
Story broke this morning - tape of a party honoring a PLO spokesman that Obama attended. Lots of vitriol about Israel and US support of Israel. LA Times is sitting on the tape, but footage supposedly shows Obama nodding and applauding to remarks. This would be MSM as a lapdog to Obama. If it's true, it should be released as a matter of the public's right to know. If it's bogus, same thing, as the public should be able to gauge it's authenticity. Sitting on the tape allows the public to hold MSM in even lower regard, and probably does the big O a disservice - what people imagine is in the tape will probably be worse than the reality. It's October - Suprise!!!
Reply to this
I have just found your website great.
I am from Mali and also now am reading in English. America is great.
Thank you very much
Reply to this