ARCHIVES
CATEGORIES
Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog:
3cx.org
Absinthe and Cookies
Accidental Verbosity
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable
All Day Permanent Red
All Things Jennifer
Ann Althouse
The American Mind
Arguing with signposts
The Astute Blogger
Asymmeterical Information
Attaboy
augustus
B-Town Blog Boys
BabyTrollBlog
Backcountry Conservative
Balloon Juice
Bananas and Such Begging to Differ
The Bemusement Park
Benedict
Bewtween the Coasts
Betsy's Page
The Big Picture
BipolarBBSBlog
bLogicus
Blogs for Bush
BoiFromTroy
Boots and Sabers
brykMantra
BushBlog
The Bully Pulpit
Caffeinated Musing
California Yankee
Captain's Quarters
Chicago Report
Chicagoland of Confusion
Citizen Smash
Coldheartedtruth
Collected Thoughts
The Command Post
Common Sense and Wonder
Confessions Of A Political Junkie
The Conservative Philosopher
Conservative Revolution
Conservative and Right
Cranial Cavity
The Daily Lemon
Daly Thoughts
DANEgerus Weblog
Dart Frog on a Cactus
Dean's World Dear Free World
Brad DeLong
Democracy Project
DiVERSiONZ
The Disagreeable Conservative Curmudgeon
Down to the Piraeus
Drink this...
Earl's log
Earthly Passions
The Education Wonks
the evangelical outpost
exvigilare
Eye of the Storm
Feste
Filtrat
The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles
The Friendly Ghost
FringeBlog
Functional, if not decorative
G-Blog.net
The Galvin Opinion
The Glittering Eye
Haight Speech
Half-Bakered
The Hedgehog Report
Heh. Indeed.
Hellblazer
Hennessy's View
High Desert Skeptic
History and Perceptions
Robert Holcomb
I love Jet Noise
Idlewild South
Incommunicado
Independent Thinker
Insults Unpunished
Interested-Participant
Internet Ronin
Ipse Dixit
It Can't Rain All The Time...
The Jay Blog
Jen Speaks
Joefish's Freshwater Blog
John Lemon
johnrpierce.info blog
Judicious Asininity
Just On The Other Side
The Kudzu Files
LeatherPenguin
Let's Try Freedom
LibertarianJackass.com
Liberty Father
Life and Law
David Limbaugh
LittleBugler
Locke, or Demosthenes?
LostINto
Mad Minerva
Gary Manca
Mark the Pundit
Mediocre but Unexciting
memeorandum
Mental Hiccups
Miller's Time
Mind of Mog
Minorities For Bush
Mr. Hawaii
The Moderate Voice
The Modulator
Much Ado
Mungowitz End
My opinion counts
my thoughts, without the penny charge
My Word
mypetjawa
Naw
Neophyte Pundit
Neutiquam erro
New England Republican
NewsHawk Daily
neWs Round-Up
NixGuy.com
No Pundit Intended
Nobody asked me, but...
Obsidian Wings
Occam's Toothbrush
On the Fritz
On the Third Hand
One Fine Jay
Out of Context
Outside the Beltway
Suman Palit
Parablemania
Passionate America
Brian Patton
Peaktalk
Peppermint Patty
Phlegma
John Pierce
PiratesCove
Politicalman
The Politicker
The Politburo Diktat
Political Annotation
Political Blog For The Politically Incorrect
Possumblog
Power Politics
Powerpundit.com
Practical Penumbra
Priorities & Frivolities ProfessorBainbridge.com
Prof. Blogger's Pontifications
PunditFilter
Pundit Heads
QandO
The Queen of All Evil
Quotes, Thoughts, and other Ramblings
Ramblings' Journal
Random Acts of Kindness
Random Nuclear Strikes
Ranting Rationalist
Read My Lips
Reagan Country
Jay Reding.com
A Republican's Blog
Resource.full
The Review
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wingin-It
Right Wing News
Right Voices
Rightward Reasonings
riting on the wall
robwestcott
Rooftop Report
RoguePundit
The Sake of Argument
Scrappleface
Secular Sermons
Sha Ka Ree
Shaking Spears
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
The Skeptician
The Skewed
Slant/Point.
Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff
small dead animals
Sneakeasy's Joint
SoCal Law Blog
A Solo Dialogue
Solomonia
Some Great Reward
Southern Musings
Speed of Thought...
Spin Killer
Matthew J. Stinson
A Stitch in Haste
The Strange Political Road Trip of Jane Q. Public
Stuff about
Suman Palit
SwimFinsSF
Target Centermass
Templar Pundit
The Temporal Globe
Tex the Pontificator
Texas Native
think about it...
Tiger
Tobacco Road Fogey
Toner Mishap
Tony Talks Tech
The Trimblog
Truth. Quante-fied.
Use The Forks!!
Varifrank
Vista On Current Events
VodkaPundit
Vox Baby
Jeff Vreeland's Blog
Wall of Sleep
Weapons of Mass Discussion
Who Knew?
The Window Manager
Winning Again!
WizBang!
WizBang Tech
The World Around You
The Yin Blog
You Big Mouth, You!
Zygote-Design
Non-Blogs Linking to PoliBlog:
al.com - Alabama Weblogs

AJC's 2004 Election Politics Sites and Blogs Campaign Finance
Welcome to newcounterculture.com World O' Blogs
Yahoo! Directory Political Weblogs
Young Elephant

Who Links Here

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Click here to go to the main page.

10 Comments»

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.php/4458

  1. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had an incumbent that was comfortable enough with their debating skills, and positions in general, to welcome the chance to take on a rival in the world of debate?

    My problem with your points, though they all are right, is that it is based solely on the fact that the President wouldn’t want to “risk” giving the public the ability to clearly hear both sides of the issues.

    Comment by Bill K — Thursday, August 26, 2004 @ 5:06 pm

  2. Actually, I honsetly think that weekly debates would be a waste of time. Further, they would diminish the significance of the deabtes, and likely cut down on the number of people who would actually intently watch.

    And there is an inherent risk for any incumbent in any office to cede too much time to his/her opponent.

    I find the whole “he won’t debate” dance more annoying than the lackof debates. Three strikes me as plenty.

    Comment by Steven Taylor — Thursday, August 26, 2004 @ 5:15 pm

  3. I find it absolutely hard to believe that people who are 100% for Democracy would rather see a campaign of spin, exaggerations, and ad wars, instead of one compiled of debates on the issues.

    Would you feel good if you won election not because of what you stood for, but because you were able to out slander your rival? A statesman should welcome discussion not deception.

    Comment by Bill K — Thursday, August 26, 2004 @ 5:53 pm

  4. Yea. I mean it’s only the president of our country, after all. Having only three debates under highly scripted formats only leads to a context free political system - a truly dangerous thing to encourage. Kind of the “fast food” of politics where we play the lightning round and pick our choice in the final jeopardy round.

    That these debates wouldn’t hold the public’s attention is largely due to the fact that they wouldn’t hold the media’s attention. And that’s because anything that isn’t soda pop and candy bores the Heathers.

    If we’re going to have a frickin’ year long political season filled with sound bite wars, dueling commercials and blood feuds from the days of Nixon, the least these campaigns can do is sit down every frickin’ week and debate.

    I’d rather be bored to death with policy wonking on a planetary scale, overdosed on information about my choices, than turned into the media equivalent of an obese diabetic from all the sugary babbles trotted out as diversions.

    Really now.

    Comment by Hal — Thursday, August 26, 2004 @ 6:13 pm

  5. Fair enough, I suppose. My comments wee not directed at Kerry, per se. I find it silly whenever this card is played.

    In all honesty, do you really think Kerry is serious, or is playing the standarf game?

    And, moreover, do you think weekly debates would really be of a higher quality than what we currently get (which, I will agree, really aren’t true debates).

    Perhaps if they had real debates on a weekly basis that might be worth doing, but I know that is as likely to happen as Cheney growing a full head of hair by election day. It just isn’t part of the system, and it isn’t going to be for a host of reasons.

    Comment by Steven Taylor — Thursday, August 26, 2004 @ 7:51 pm

  6. Bill,

    Are you saying that the debates don’t represent spin? And isn’t the main product of the debates nothing more than sound bites?

    Really, do you really think that weekly debates are going to transform modern campaigning? Regardless of how one feels about this process, it is rather naive to think that weekly debates will result in the flourishing of democracy.

    Comment by Steven Taylor — Thursday, August 26, 2004 @ 7:56 pm

  7. Steven, I agree with you. I don’t know how much it would change things based on the present system. And, I truly don’t know/think that Kerry is 100% genuine when he requests the debates, but that isn’t the point. The thing that angered me was once Kerry made the statement a lot of people went right after it as if open debates on the issues were bad.

    The system would turn it into spin, a good majority of the people might not watch, and the candidates might not be sincere about wanting to do it, but for the people in this country that would like to see our Presidential candidates actually lay out a plan, it would be nice to see.

    Comment by Bill K — Thursday, August 26, 2004 @ 8:17 pm

  8. The thing that angered me was once Kerry made the statement a lot of people went right after it as if open debates on the issues were bad.

    Actually, they have the opportunity to have “open debates on the issues” during every presidential campaign at least two or three times during televised debates. NO ONE (including Kerry) wants a real debate on the issues (complete with arguments, rebuttals and summations), because most policy debates actually extend far beyond what the public will tolerate in terms of length. Want to discuss health care reform, you’ll have to debate the virtues of a free market economy vs. a quality of life guarantee; tort reform vs. placing a price on human suffering; the nature of markets vs. subsidized price controls a la Canada.

    Such debates would be fascinating, but I think you grossly overestimate the American public’s desire for that kind of debate and the candidates’ ability to engage in that kind of debate every week.

    Finally, is there any kind of sense that either of these candidates would actually express their own measured opinions on these issues? Do you think they won’t have a team of L-D debate team captains backstage doing flow-sheets and preparing counter-arguments and rebuttals?

    How does this help?

    Comment by bryan — Thursday, August 26, 2004 @ 8:30 pm

  9. Let’s take this to it’s illogical extreme: President Bush should challenge Kerry to only joint appearances for the rest of the campaign. No more individual stumping. Handcuff them together from now until November. One constant debate.

    Oh, wait, Bill and Hillary tried that, and look what happened to them.

    Comment by Bill Hennessy — Thursday, August 26, 2004 @ 9:13 pm

  10. I take Steven’s point on this to heart. I think the only reason we get these sorts of silly challenges is because no incumbent in their right minds would spend the time and effort to do it. It’s an entirely empty gesture.

    I don’t think many people would want weekly debates at all. Knowing how much time and effort goes into prepping for a debate, a weekly event, even at high efficiency for the staff, means the president isn’t governing for at least 3 days out of the week. (I know, this sounds like a dream to people who don’t want Bush governing, but I’m referring to the abstract, think of it as Clinton, Kerry, LBJ, Teddy Roosevelt, whoever you like.) And that includes the debate day. My guess is it would be more like 4 days spent half paying attention to the country and half paying attention to the debate, with one full day devoted to the debate. How soon before we start hearing stories about how the president isn’t doing the job he was elected for? They already spend so much time campaigning now that I’m not sure adding more is going to do much of anything.

    Being slightly partisan for a moment, Bill K, let’s not forget that Bush did pretty well in the debates against Gore, and has a long history of being a strong opponent in such forums. If there’s one thing I don’t think Bush is, it’s nervous about his own abilities in front of a crowd. After all, isn’t this the president who’s so incredibly smug and self-assured that he doesn’t have to listen to anyone else? The Texas Cowboy backing down from a fight because of self-doubt? I’m not a cheerleader for the guy, believe me, but that doesn’t seem to fit the profile at all. I think it has a great deal more to do with what Steven said: ceding that much time to the opponent only helps the opponent.

    Personally, the kind of debate I’d welcome is one along the Lincoln-Douglas kind. Get the candidates to spell out there ideas with a bit more time, then allow a much longer time for rebuttal. I tend to think the attention span of the populace is at least partiallyt driven by the attention span of the media. We’ve gotten used to debates with 3 minute rebuttals because the networks want to fit it in between talking heads and Seinfeld reruns. That kind of thing just fosters debate on the level of “Unlike my opponent, my plans don’t include eating babies and killing puppies while in office. I’m the one who will heal the sick, stop aging, and bring prosperity to the world by…” I’m betting people could handle political debate with more than just soundbites if the media would let it happen. But more of the kind of debates we have now just sounds painful…

    Comment by Ian — Friday, August 27, 2004 @ 7:49 am

RSS feed for these comments.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


Take a Look At This!
  • Tabloid News
  • Word of The Day
  • Chronograph Watches
  • Office Shredders
  • Cash Registers
  • Ricoh Fax Machines
  • IBM Typewriters
  • Copy Machines
  • UNIX Consulting
  • Web Design
Inquiries
Blogroll


Visitors Since 2/15/03
---

Powered by WordPress