Politics, News & Issues >
US Elections (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedAre US presidential debates too controlled to allow freedom of speech?
Results so far:
| No | 28% | 39 votes | Total: 140 votes | |
| Yes | 72% | 101 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesOpposing candidates find ways of overcoming restrictions when debating? They are savvy enough to use their words to get in their best ideas. I noticed this especially last night with presidential hopefuls McCain and Obama. At one point, Jim Lauer, the moderator, not satisfied after rewording his question several times, mentioned they had not answered his question. He tried again and as far as I could understand they still talked around the question and were not pinned down.
This debate was overshadowed by the current economy and the bailout plan in the talk and both were somewhat subdued and although a raised eyebrow or a shaking head or a surprised look was about all there was to confrontation, There were some interruptions but these were mild. I heard no loud pounding of gavels or anything like that. Both were excellent, well polished speakers and told of their intentions when they became the next president. Both would do well.
It is necessary to keep the talks on track and Lauer did a commendable job. The first question asked was how they would relate to the present economical crisis. This was what everyone wanted to hear and will, I am sure, change a few minds already made up. Obama being asked to speak first was at a small disadvantage. He opened up the debate by telling how he was different from McCain on the economy.
McCain, alerted by what Obama said was the more tolerant speaker. In this instance, age came before beauty. He does have past experiences that Obama have only read about; but Obama has youth and an energy that McCain can now only dream about. Either, in my opinion, are good choices. Possibly Obama is a little too venturesome and will make an excellent second term president. He will have learned from his robust mistakes that all new presidents make. Hopefully, should he be elected, his vice-president will be there to steer him in the right direction.
McCain, on the other hand, knows well the turf. He has been around and knows of the mistakes of his own party and that of the Democrats. Will these keep him from acting as quickly as he should when new issues come up that he has not encountered before? Probably not. He is known for his strength of purpose and will make the right decisions. How will he keep up? He is not as agile as his opponent is one thought that keeps popping up among his detractors. Only time will tell.
Regardless of how the moderator tried to keep the two on track they managed to get their points across. Were it not for the enforced control the moderator would lose all direction and the issues that loom large in voter's minds would not have been answered. The questions asked were diverse and were asked in a way to give audiences a better all-around view of the candidate. Listeners got a fairly good picture of the differences in the candidate and this was clearly something was needed.
Differences other than between the thinking style of the old and young, although this idea emerging. Obama probably saw it as youth and vigor and fresh new ideas as opposed to McCain's assessment of Obama as lacking in experience and being nave. Yet the biggest problem they faced last night in their staged performance was taxes. They were clearly miles apart when it came to tax cuts and spending; yet is this not one of the most contentious disagreements whenever politicians debate?
An interesting question that was never answered to my satisfaction was "what will each of you give up [when you are president] to help out the financial bailout"? Not the exact words but the idea. Neither committed themselves. Probably it was a question they had not anticipated and by the time of the next debate they will have arrived at some better, more exact answers; but then it will probably not be asked again. An equally disturbing question will be asked. What the two did was fill in the time with other hedging remarks.
I reiterate: No, the debate was not at a disadvantage because it was controlled. On the contrary, it was a fruitful debate because it addressed the most important issues on the minds of voters.
Learn more about this author, EMoore.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
The presidential debates are coming. After going through numerous debates from both parties,especially democrats , it is only conceivable that the debates would see some action. However, should we leave the debates only to the big boys or should we let the firebrand third party candidates in for the debates? Let me explore the case for including former congressman Bob Barr and possibly the old warrior Ralph Nader into these debates. And how it would restore the freedom of speech of America.
Firstly, The Commission on Presidential Debates, a private, non-profit corporation, only allow candidates who poll above 15% nationally to be included in the presidential debates. This adds a serious dent to the commission's claim to be non-partisan. They are siding with the big guys who nevertheless treat the third party candidates as a thorn in their sides. A better way would be to include everyone that have made themselves into the ballot in at least 15% of the states, let us keep the number at 8 to round it off. This would eliminate unnecessary cacophony while opening up the stage for the candidates to come forward and express the views. Do you know why this is important?
Well, a lot of people, the so called independents who roam the aisle and choose which side to vote at the last moment, make that decision based on the presidential debates to see where the candidates stand on the issues, what plans they have up their sleeves to send the country in the right direction and also to see the integrity and strength that they display in the debates. This means that the third party candidates, being marginal in terms of visibility to the nation will have no chance to get their ideas across to the multitudes. Who knows what the people would decide once they see all the ideas being showcased in a nationally televised presidential debate? It is absolutely the spirit of democracy. This is the freedom of speech that the constitution guarantees. So are you saying that people do not think outside the box? Well, about that later.
At least the people of America are polling in a majority to get the third party candidates to be included in the debates. I am quoting straight from the Zogby International's website. "UTICA, New York - More than half of likely voters nationwide - 55% - want Republican-turned-Li bertarian Bob Barr to participate in presidential debates this fall, while nearly half - 46% - said they think Ralph Nader should be allowed into the on-stage fray, the latest Zogby Interactive polling shows." Shouldn't we heed to the opinion of these 40 or 50% of people in America? Does that not restore the freedom of speech of American public?
The final argument for the third party candidates is that they will not be afraid to broach subjects that the democratic or republican party candidates would rather evade. They do not have to worry about offending any of their big money donors. They are also fearless of defeat and hence would be totally truthful and forceful in discussion about any matter. I can see Senators Obama and McCain trembling about the prospect of Bob Barr asking about how well their policies protect the constitution and whatever it stands for. Or Ralph Nader asking about how their policies do anything that helps America's middle class. What better way to open up the debates than this and let all parties and ideologies, not just Republican and Democratic ones, be heard across America, from sea to shining sea.
So in conclusion, we should all urge The Commission on Presidential Debates to include the third party or independent candidates in the debate and see the democracy and freedom of speech flourish. This would enable the debates to actually reveal and cross examine the effectiveness and honesty of the policies of all the candidates. I would only help America. I do not see how it could hurt America. God bless America.
Sources:
http ://www.zogby.com/new s/ReadNews.dbm?ID=15 38
Learn more about this author, Domestic Avalanche.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Is part of the president's job to inspire the American people?
- Do you agree with the House of Representatives that candidates for Congress shouldn't be able to pay their spouses for campaign work?
- Should there be spending limits on political campaigns?
- Should absentee ballots be allowed in US elections?
- Should photo identification be required to vote?
- Should US senators and Senate candidates start filing their campaign finance reports electronically, as House members and presidential candidates already do?
