LET'S MAKE DEBATES A BETTER
'INTERVIEW' FOR WORLD'S TOP JOB
The Sheboygan Press
Editorial
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
John F. Kerry and George W. Bush,
are the two major applicants for the most important job in the world.
We'd like to see them tested in a far better way than the type of presidential
debates that begin Thursday night in Coral Gables, Fla.
What's wrong with the presidential debates? Under the Commission on Presidential
Debates, which has overseen the debates for the last four elections, the
debates have become tools of the two dominant parties, rather than instruments
serving the people who are doing the "hiring," the voters.
Under the commission's approach, the two parties secretly negotiate the
debate formats and schedules. They exclude minor party candidates, restrict
the subject matter and set up formats that allow their candidates to parrot
the same lines they use in their stump speeches and in their advertisements.
There is little or no direct questioning of one candidate by the other.
The American people aren't being fooled.
And a result has been more voters tuning out the debates; viewership has
plummeted by 25 million over the years.
Further, the journalists covering the debates have become more like theatrical
critics analyzing how each candidate played their rehearsed roles instead
of pundits analyzing what they said and how credible it was.
To make the debates more meaningful we'd like to see them turned over
to the Citizens' Debate Commission or some similar organization that would
set fair candidate selection criteria, feature innovative and engaging
formats and oppose the anti-democratic demands of the major parties.
Consider the makeup of the Citizens' Debate Commission. Its members include:
Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the conservative Heritage Foundation, Chellie
Pingree of Common Cause, Randall Robinson of the Trans African Forum,
John B, Anderson, a third-party candidate for president in 1980, Tom Gerity
of the Brennan Center for justice, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Larry Noble,
a former Federal Election Commission general counsel and Jehmu Greene
of Rock the Vote.
The result of the work of such a diverse group would likely be a debate
format that allowed about four to seven candidates -- at least in the
initial debates-- discussing a far wider range of topics with a broader
spectrum of solutions. Further, the debate formats could be set up so
that the two major candidates might be thoroughly questioned and required
to back up their statements with logical answers and pertinent facts.
Such debates would be far more insightful, far more interesting and likely
to attract far more viewers.
That's what is needed for candidates for the world's most important job.
|
