The Debate Rules?

A lot of people have been worried that we are missing something because there are too many rules for the coming presidential debates. Both parties now control the debates are watering them down in this is somehow bad for America. I don't think it really makes any difference.

1. All debates have rules. Why is this any different? I was listening to a talkshow host today who was complaining a little and stated that he liked the California gubernatorial debates from the latest selection which ousted Gray Davis. The only thing I remember from the debates was a lot of name-calling that did not tell me one thing about why I should oust Gray Davis. Some rules are good. As a lawyer, I'm used to 32-page documents. Frankly, 32 pages isn't really much at all. Besides, without rules, the more Machiavellian party will be slightly less gentlemanly and will do something with a gotcha quotient. Rules are good.

2. Having the two parties get together and run the debates is the best option. It's absurd to think that some third party would be able to create debates which are completely neutral and objective. No one is unbiased. No one. In this case, the two parties make the rules. They are the parties which are, by definition, mutually opposed to each other. They negotiate with each other and try to come up with the best possible outcome for their guy. In the negotiation context, each party gets a little something but neither party gets everything I want. If the League of Women Voters were a little liberal, even if they were not partisan, they would still be a little bias for Kerry. This way, the negotiation context causes a truly neutral situation where neither party has an ace in the hole. Each party is able to negotiate bias out of the system.

3. I am here to vote for a president, not the best debater. My understanding is that George Bush is not always the best speaker. Kerry isn't either, but I would say that he is better than George Bush. Nevertheless, I don't care how the president says what he says. I care what he says. The debates tell me nothing more than who use the best debater. It doesn't tell me what the policies really are and what kind of leader a president will be.

I will watch the debates a little. But what do you remember from the debates. George Bush looking at his watch. Al Gore sighing a dozen times. Richard Nixon's five o'clock shadow. Ronald Reagan's crack about Walter Mondale's youth and inexperience. Ross Perot's diagrams and graphs (anyone remember what was on his diagrams and graphs). How Dan Quayle isn't really like John F. Kennedy. Anyone remember anything else?