Letters to the Editor
-
General Kerr
Kerr should have been honest about his affiliation, but because of Grover Norquist and, even moreso, the diamonds and pearl question, CNN has no business complaining about his question. They have become a sad self-parody. Not really a coincidence, I think, that this happened after their merger with TimeWarner.
-
No matter how stupid
I don't care how silly or stupid or strange the YouTube questions were, they were a HUGE improvement over Wolf Blitzer's tragi-comic portrayal of a "newsman" trying to get people to just answer "yes" or "no" to nuanced issues so he could get as many sound-bites as possible for the after-analysis. People at least ask genuine questions, and even when they may or may not be putting the candidates on, they are more interesting than a talking head.
I think it would be interesting if YouTube held a debate and had the candidates submit YouTube answers to YouTube questions, without any networks or network news types in between.
And CNN ought to stop wasting time with their stupid photo-op openings for these things and the dumb final questions (jewelry for Hillary, sports for Rudy -- isn't that predictable?) and just stick with real stuff that people actually do want to know.
-
Waste of Time
YouTube debates are nothing but a gimmick. CNN picks the questions from who-knows-how-many, so I don't see how it really amounts to being any different from a regular televised debate. Unless they have some method where they chose the most-asked-questions from submissions. Do they? You'd think they'd mention it if they did.
But then these debates in general, YouTube or not, are pretty much gimmicks. Could there possibly be a worst way to get a real understanding of candidates and thier positions? They're nothing but soundbite contests, moderated by people who have NO INTEREST in substantive discussions of issues.
-
The forgotten option
I understand the motivation for bringing real citizens into the debates -- we're all fed up with the lousy questions posed by network hacks. But instead of going straight to the masses (albeit in a selective way), why can't we just get informed professional journalists up on stage asking questions? Sure, I would love to ask the candidates a few questions, but I would much rather hear them respond to questions from Glen Greenwald, Thom Hartmann, or any number of other folks better informed than myself.
-
The only sensible debate format . . .
Simply put, there should be weekly debates. Each week there is a full hour devoted exclusively to One topic. With a maximum of 3 "starter" questions from the talking head moderator. This is not to say that there will only be three questions. Candidates should be welcome and encouraged to cross examine one another, and moderators can ask probing follow-up questions. However, the asking of rhetorical questions or cutting off of opponents' answers is punishable by loss of speaking time.
This would be somewhat unwieldy and may need to be modified in the Primaries phase, but this should be the predominant forum for the actual general election.
Once the candidates have been selected, each week should focus on a different single topic. No more of these one trick pony candidacies. No more sloganeering. No more bumper sticker politics.
This would benefit everyone tremendously. For starters, it will help reduce manipulation of the media by eliminating candidates' hit and run methods of "communication" forcing them to define the terms of their slogans and provide the details of their visiion.
It would benefit the candidates by testing their ideas in the crucible of hostile scrutiny. If enough logic-based holes can be shot in your position, it is time to reinforce it. Improve it. Make it stronger.
The public, seeing this evolution of ideas, can better understand shifts in policy that would otherwise be called backpedalling or flip-flopping.
A smart candidate would propose this formula, and (if snubbed) publicly hammer their opponent for refusing such a challenge, while focusing on a thorough and detailed public explanation of not just their complaints about the present, but their plans for improving the future.
-
Other Web Based Forums
There is another way to do this, exemplified by the web site 10questions.com. Ordinary folks submitted questions. Site visitors (121,000) voted on the best 10 questions. Candidate answer online.
The top ten questions from the folks are about Net neutrality, the role of religion, plus a number of other issues raised no where else. We know how the candidates stand on Iran and Iraq. The Republicans want to bomb Iran and keep slogging in Iraq - except for Ron Paul. The Democrats are a bit more varied in their response to the Bush Wars. We need to hear other issues raised, and the internet is a good tool for raising those issues.
Unfortunately, the candidates don't seem to want to engage the voters through this medium. So far only Huckabee, Edwards and Paul have agreed to answer the questions, and only Huckabee has answered everyone of the questions.
-
Diamonds or Pearls?
And why didn't anyone ask Rudy what style of necklace HE prefers?
-
Jeopardy
I agree that the format needs some tweaking but I do like the use of YouTube videos. This is a competition so let's treat it like one and make into some kind of gameshow.
Put up several monitors, like 9, showing a frozen picture of the begining of the video and let a candidates pick one. He can either answer the question or pass it on to someone else. Or maybe they buzz in to answer the question. Whatever. But points are awarded for answering questions. Not right or wrong answers, just answer the question.
After a video is chosen another one is put in it's place so there are always nine video stills from which to choose. The videos are replaced in a pre determined order of issues. The candidates could have 8 immigration videos and one about gays in the military depending on how they choose. They are choosing their own adventures!
Sounds fun to me. Or maybe I've had too much Wait Wait Don't Tell Me!
-
A little unclear?
"But did it deserve more emphasis last night than Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, domestic spying, education and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina combined?"
It was a GOP debate. Why in hell would they even want those mentioned, let alone discussed? That would be like have Bush stump for you, saying how great you were going to be at "staying the course," and maintaining all the great things that he had started. And god forbid they should have to answer actual tough questions from the unwashed masses. Talking about kicking brown people's asses is so much easier, and presidential.