The Debate Process

I’ve thought about all the comments made after the 3 presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. If the Republican was calm and unflustered (Ryan on October 11, 2012) it won over voters but when the President was the same way on October 3 they said he didn’t show up, it looked like he didn’t care, and called him week. Joe Biden was called aggressive and energetic, Elisabeth Hasselbeck said he was immature – I wonder how many times she’s been immature defending her truth on The View. Some didn’t like him laughing and interrupting Ryan in fact Republicans said he interrupted Ryan 82 times and yet, no one was counting in the October 3 Obama/Romney debate. Romney interrupted Obama and the moderator, Jim Lehrer even interrupted him to ask Romney if he agreed with something Obama said and Lehrer couldn’t get Romney to stop going over his allotted time. Romney’s aggressive behavior was called presidential instead of getting a negative comment for his behavior. I personally liked Martha Raddatz’ handling of the vice presidential debate as she had firsthand knowledge of the facts on the issues she was questioning. Jim Lehrer on the other hand didn’t question anything that was said and the American people were once again subjected to false information. In the October 16 presidential debate with Candy Crowley bantering occurred as in the first debate but Crowley had a better handle on it; she also corrected something Romney said and had to take flack for it from Republicans. In the final presidential debate of October 22 Bob Schieffer let some of the bantering go on for too long and did try to get some clarification on what was said.

It appears demeanor and not truth matters in these debates. If debates are just meant to be a face to face discussion without actual content than I believe we have achieved our objective. However, I disagree with this approach. I believe debates should be an arena in which specific points are addressed with complete and true information and not be a place for speech rhetoric as candidates already have that opportunity when travelling to constituents. If we want our system to change then we need to hold our representatives to a higher standard and demand more honesty and less bullying in campaigns. Debate moderators must therefore be familiar with the facts of the issues the candidates are responding to and be able to question the information given. Otherwise, devise an electronic mechanism with bells and whistles so the people know when they’re being lied to. I also don’t want any debate analyses that are not based on the facts.