Here’s the truth about the political debates of both parties as currently structured. (emphasis mine…)
"If anything would convince me to lean away from running, it was watching all of those guys with too little time, with too many Mickey Mouse questions from the reporters.
It’s exactly the wrong way to pick a president, and I think it doesn’t help the country much."
Newt Gingrich is correct. The world of ‘political debates’ is a travesty of sound bites repeated endlessly with little or no interaction between candidates. A stronger judgment could easily be made and defended: ‘…it hurts the country in the process.‘
These aren’t debates. These are simply longer sound bite forums. While they serve a better purpose than the standard TV news 20 second ‘news’ report, this format, which is apparently now considered traditional, deadens meaningful interaction. We’ve even had an Move-On Net ‘debate’ where the answers were recorded in advance. It gives the word ‘debate’ a bad name.
The actual definition of ‘debate‘ is:
-to argue with one another
-to consider:think carefully: weigh
-to discuss the pro’s and con’s of an issue
None of that is happening in our political ‘debates’. The candidates aren’t given time to formulate real substantive answers to complicated issues. To make matters worse, they can’t challenge one another to provide the factual basis behind the other candidates remarks. Beyond the slightly longer statements, the only useful element in these ‘debates’ is that the entire candidate field is forced to answer the same questions at the same time.
The current ‘debate’ format of both parties is a joke that does the voting public, and the candidates, a disservice. There are alternatives that are not being explored.
(For those unhappy about quoting Newt Gingrich, as a proponent of Practical Politics I’ll take insightful quotes from any source. )