The next GOP debate is being held on Tuesday. Yours truly finagled her way into a ticket to this event attended by 1200 people. Being able to witness firsthand a Presidential debate, even though it is just the primaries, has made me start really thinking about the repercussions of the debates and the fairness of them.
I've kind of noticed during the first couple debates, the "front runners" got a considerable more amount of face time then the second-tier candidates. This really bothers me and is just another example of how the media influences the choice of our president.
Do people really pay attention to the debates? I usually just watch the debates to either make fun of candidates or to cheer my candidate on. I venture that many people who watch the debates are already decided in their votes. Many candidates hold debate watching parties and field directors encourage people in their districts to do the same. Obviously, if you hold a debate party for Rudi Giulani or Mitt Romney, you are probably solid in your decision to vote for the man.
Aren't debates supposed to inform people of the candidates’ positions? If people who are already decided watch the debate, isn't that defeating the purpose? The debates seem to be just full of talking points and mindless rhetoric, the same thing over and over, debate after debate. It does nothing to propel candidates forward, except for GOP candidate Ron Paul who is an exception to every rule.
Debates are won by the best public speaker, not the person with the best ideas and facts. I've seen it happen before. In Michigan's 2008 Gubernatorial debates, Governor Jennifer Granholm consistently out did the GOP candidate, Dick DeVos. Granholm graduated from Harvard Law School and DeVos was a businessman. Obviously, she would have better speaking skills then DeVos, but DeVos's ideas were head over heels better then Granholm's. Alas, he lost the debates and the elections and look where Michigan is now with higher taxes and horrendous budgets.
I will enjoy the debate Tuesday because it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for a 17-year old, I hope there are many more in my future to attend and that maybe, one day, I'll be able to stand up at one of the podiums and offer my ideas to the American people, ideas that are new and progressive. Until then, we all must do our best to be informed and inform others of the facts, not rhetoric, so the next President might be the best person for America, not the best public speaker.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think that Paul's a good speaker. I don't really think that Rudy is a very good speaker. He's just too amazingly smarmy and obnoxious. Huckabee is ok, but he's a moron as far as I'm concerned. Romney is pretty good. McCain has flipped, so he can't really talk anymore. And I mean, really, Gore and Kerry were both better speakers that George W. Gore got more votes and Kerry came very close running on the "I'm not George Bush" platform, but the better speaker did not win.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I didn't mean the election, but the debate. Many times the most proficient speakers are also the best at evading the question. I think the candidate that most candidly answers questions and with the most progressive, thought out, informative answer should be the one who "wins" the debate
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/bamers
Ah, understood. I would agree with that.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil