6 of 6

No

Write now Article Tools

I'm siding with the "no" regarding presidential debates being too controlled to allow freedom of speech for one reason, and one reason only. It really doesn't matter how controlled the debates are speech-wise. The American people are hearing the same confusing rhetoric sugar coated with the major issues that we've heard for dozens of years, especially since the advent of television.

Let's face it, presidential campaigns have long been a button down beauty pageant where the candidate with the most attractive, and repetitive, message appearance is the one most likely to be voted into office. And even the smallest, most insignificant behavior can turn the tide in either direction.

For instance, after successfully thieving the 2000 election, the Bush administration puked a family values and a no gay marriage platform in 2004, and won (assuming there wasn't a higher, undetectable level of cheating) a second term, as Democrats scream-built a platform denigrating the farce war in Iraq. That term, without a 9/11 to lean on, has turned out to be more disastrous than the first term. Shame on 51% of the American people for feeling that it was more important for their children to die in Iraq based on a lie than to allow gay couples to have, at the very least, the ability to keep those same children safe.

It's really stupid now. We have two major political parties with potential presidential candidates that attempt to spank each other with bamboo, and when one party candidate emerges victorious, the other party candidates who tried to murder their platform now support them against the enemy - other Americans.

With the advent and proliferation of media, it had gotten even worse. There's a mansion sized cottage industry of political pundits who not only make a living, but who get rich writing newspaper and magazine article and books, and make appearances on television, and even get television contracts explaining to the poor saps of America how the political machine works, when they themselves don't even know. They know only spin. There's no such thing as political science. It is merely political art.

In 2004, Howard Dean seemed to be the front runner for the Democratic party. Then, he got excited and screamed at a pancake breakfast. He was deemed UN-presidential by the political pundits. Is that why he lost the nomination? Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that the political talking heads on the television networks claimed that he was UN-presidential, whereas

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Are US presidential debates too controlled to allow freedom of speech??
We want to hear your view. Write now!