Debates

David Ignatius must have never observed a presidential campaign before if he thinks that eliminating the current system of primary debates with one in which we "Organize a series of one-on-one face-offs in which leading Democratic candidates debate not each other but leading Republicans" would force candidates to "talk these issues through, beyond the usual slogans and sound bites."

We have Democrat versus Republic debates during the general elections and you get precisely the "usual slogans" and "sound bits." And, of course, the candidates aren't mistaken for thinking that a focus on shallow trivialities is what wins elections. We all recall that when Bush lied constantly and Gore sighed and rolled his eyes in frustration the press . . . murdered Gore for being visibly frustrated rather than Bush for, say, completely misportraying his tax proposals.

Comments

This post didn't show up in RSS, at least in the google reader that I use.

Posted by washerdreyer | June 18, 2007 12:57 AM

The best thing about the Bush/Kerry debates is the relization that winning the debate merits absolute squat. Honestly, Kerry slammed Bush in all three debates (especially that first one). I would be interested in some polling data taken after the debates. Also, how many people were swayed by one canidates performance.

Anywho, IMO, debates don`t matter anymore, and I would love to see some data that proves me wrong.

Posted by Profbacon | June 18, 2007 3:34 AM

Actually, debates matter enormously. Well, not the debates themselves, but the post-debate "analysis" performed by the media. The high-profile pundits pick a winner. They decide which gaffes merit coverate. They all decide to agree with one another. And then they hammer these conclusions home.

Look at the coverage Gore's "sighs" got in the first Bush/Gore debate in '00, which MY mentions in this post. It is arguable that this coverage was the turning point of the election. Gore was on the upswing up to that point. And all polling showed that people thought Gore had won the debate handily. But he lost the post-debate press analysis and that's all that really matters.

As usual, the problem is the high-profile DC celebrity press corps. If only these creeps were up for re-election . . .

Posted by Rob Mac | June 18, 2007 11:42 AM

Gore wasn't "visibly frustrated" he was acting, and he was doing it poorly. If he had done it well, it would have had the intended effect, but instead he looked like an idiot. The press may not have a clue when it comes to policy issues, but they are more than qualified to spot a phony. They jumped on him because he was on their turf.

Posted by Mario | June 18, 2007 12:22 PM

My comments to your very stupid article on DC Taxicab meters - "Why DC Does not Use Taximeters" served a fraction of the public that I was looking forward to contacting.
Google.com has recorded my research under "Karl Rudder's Blog" - You need to learn that deceptive reporters and irresponsible politicians are very good at hiding the Truth yet they cannot change it.
www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=12&&req=printentry&eid=31 - 36k

Posted by Karl Rudder | June 19, 2007 12:55 AM