Posted by
Johnny in Boston on Friday, November 30, 2007 2:53:28 AM
Was last night's CNN/YouTube Debate a debacle, as many conservative/Republican pundits and columnists have commented today: of course it was. Yet, too many are focusing on the wrong reasons why. It wasn't the Clinton campaign members asking questions about gays in the military then being flown to St. Pete courtesy of CNN and allowed a rebuttal. Was it the fact that a 'young undecided voter' asks a pro-choice framed question regarding abortion who just happens to be a pro-choice John Edwards supporter, appearing on her MySpace or some such page later in the eve sporting the afore mentioned candidates official t-shirt? Nope. Was it the young man with the Confederate Flag hanging on his wall whose question regarded the candidates feelings on said flag? Uh uh. Tough candidates are supposed to handle anything that comes their way - answering fair yet appropriate & serious questions while refusing to dignify those that are undeserving. America isn't hiring a micro-manager - we're looking for a serious, big issue thinker.
Presidential Primary debates are not supposed to open with a video of a young man singing a song ripe with un-funny couplets involving the candidates and their favorability, or lack thereof! It may be an unwritten rule, however, one I think we should probably again adhere to. Couldn't that time have been spent asking a questions regarding terrorism? All I'm asking for here is one policy question on terrorism - ya know - just one. Sure, waterboarding came up, but it was clearly designed to continue this never ending debate on torture and what forms of interrogation are classified as such. What presidential candidate would ever want to talk about that before entering office. You don't show your hand in poker and we're stuck in a high-stakes, life or death game with terrorists now.
Debates at this level are not supposed to look like the "Tribal Council" segment from an episode of 'Survivor'. The debate moments most political junkies easily remember are which - maybe Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Or perhaps, the clear discomfort accompanied by flop sweat pouring from Nixon's brow in his debate with JFK. Now we can all remember Dennis Kucinich admitting he saw a U.F.O. while at Shirley MacLaine's house. Who cares! Even those long revered moments were just "gotcha" lines which really showed us nothing about how each candidate would govern or where they stood on particular issues - although Rep. Kucinich....hmmmm.
Television changed the face of politics with the dawn of the televised debate. Do we remember any major policy announcements being revealed during a presidential debate during the last 40 years? I can't recall any blockbusters. But I remember the one-liners and candidates caught checking their watches and similar folly - but at least, I remember the media treating the events with at least a modicum of seriousness with serious questions more often being posed. Last night was just an episode of Republican Survivor. Sure, we can rant about CNN's bias or lax vetting processes et al. - and there is some merit to all that. In the end though - c'mon - neither party's candidates deserve to be asked silly questions by snowmen (or women), whether they prefer diamonds or pearls or asked to discuss the immigration status of employees of companies they hire to do yard work at their houses.
This is a serious business. This should be the toughest job interview going. It should be a forum for ones policies. The validity of candidates positions should be discussed seriously and on their merit - not "triangulated". Let's hear the candidates speak frankly about their plans for reaching across the aisle and finding a way to compromise with our political opposites. Let's try probing to see if any of these candidates are even capable of political compromise. Is there a diamond in the rough, a statesman in the making? Is there someone on these debate stages willing to sacrifice personal accolades in return for the advancement of the American people? How will we ever know when we've allowed this process to so utterly devolve. It's become a spectacle where the smart candidates know to keep quiet and let the others throw mud and look like petty clowns in front of million(s).
Why would our next Washington or Lincoln or FDR want to go through this? Our great American statesmen possessed such intellect and dignity that they wouldn't allow themselves to be put in such a position as politicians so routinely embrace today. Identifying our choice of president has truly become show business, boob-tube fluff. I want to know how our next leader would approach the current Annapolis Conference; what diplomatic measures they'd take the next time China denied us temporary harboring rights as they've done twice in the last 30 days; how we'd respond to the rise of Putin's Russia and his emergence as a quasi-dictator; Pakistan's potential democratic collapse and the safeguarding of their nuclear weapons. The list goes on. I want substance. I want to watch a job interview more difficult than that which I would give to someone I needed to hire. I want to think about issues not one-liners. I want to wake up the morning after a debate and talk policy, not UFO's. I never liked "Survivor" anyway.
- Johnny