I may or may not write about the joint press appearance in detail, but I do have one question: did y’all get the split-screen, or was it just C-SPAN’s feed?
,
-Vardibidian.
I may or may not write about the joint press appearance in detail, but I do have one question: did y’all get the split-screen, or was it just C-SPAN’s feed?
,
-Vardibidian.
You probably know this by now, but . . .
From the commentary I saw on the networks after the debate, it looks to me like splitscreen was the standard (I watched on C-Span, of course), though I didn’t check in on Fox.
There was actually quite a bit of talk about how Bush and Kerry looked while the other was speaking, with much reference to Al Gore’s “low marks” for his demeanor while Bush was speaking back in the 2000 debates.
I hope our Gentle Host will share his analysis of the debate with readers!
A few notes in passing:
1) What group could replace the press as the source of questions for the debate? All of the “do you believe” questions?? Awful, stupid, meaningless.
2) There were no Great Communicators on stage last night. Either Clinton or Reagan would have won that debate handily, I think.
3) The weakness of Bush’s position was pretty plain: about all he can say to justify himself is “Trust me. This is hard, we’re making progress, and I don’t send mixed messages.” He wasn’t prepared to talk, as far as I could tell, about Iran and North Korea and the “war on terror” as part of a coherent strategy.
4) Kerry didn’t put him away because he wasn’t as direct and clear in his criticisms as he could have been, and he didn’t have the empathy that Bush did. But he seemed much cooler and more in control than Bush did, and that, I think, was more important than personability in this debate.
I’m gonna get this all wrong but weren’t the debates (back in the 70s?) hosted by the League of Women Voters?
No one would agree to it unfortunately but they represent an organization concerned with bi-partisan issues.
Yes, the LWV (bless ’em) hosted the debates until 1984, but they were interested in including third-party candidates and the candidates of the two major parties were not. Also, when Ronald Reagan scored by claiming he paid for the mic, a light went off. If the candidates pay for the mic, they can set the rules (although they can’t necessarily enforce them).
As for the moderator last night, and the quality of moderating in general, well, I agree that there is much to be desired. The complete absence of factual background for the question allowed—heck, begged the candidates to be vague and general, rather than address the actual question. On the other hand, I can’t easily come up with a better system without insisting on the Prime Minister’s Question Time. My real preference (a series of eight or so weekly debates on topics randomly selected at the start of the hour from a list of thirty or so drawn up by a committee of college presidents, heads of (foreign) states, legislative leaders, former presidents, journalists, and college debate champions, in the four-person APDA format of 8/8/8/8/4/4 minute speeches, with heckling allowed by the participants, and a ‘moderator’ only to briefly introduce the candidates, read off the topic, and keep time) would require entirely different candidates, an entirely different electorate, and quite possibly an entirely different system of government.
,
-V.
My real preference . . . would require entirely different candidates, an entirely different electorate, and quite possibly an entirely different system of government.
You lead me to wonder if “the quality of the political debates it arranges” should be a major criterion in judging the overall quality of a system of government . . .