31 January 2008¶ Upon reflection, I blame Huck and Ron Paul
I’m still thinking about why the Republicans in debate are more boring (annoying, pandering) than the Democrats. I think the Democratic debates were better for the presence of Edwards, and the Republicans have no equivalent third presence.
In the Democratic debates there were really ever only two choices. It was always either Hillary or Obama, and occasionally the debates would descend into some petty squabbles between those two. But eventually, they’d have to pay some attention to Edwards — not just out of fairness, but because he represented enough potential delegates to make a difference. Edwards wasn’t ever going to win, but he might have been a major force in the nomination process.
Even more, Edwards was fighting to bring the debates away from issues of celebrity and back to issues. He couldn’t compete on the celebrity issue — he is just another white male — but he could do something about issues. So he kept hitting on the issues, bringing the discussion back to the real differences between candidates. When Hillary and Obama got embroiled in did-not-did-so squabbles about something one of them said, once, in an interview nine months ago, Edwards would always bring it back to the voters’ concerns about the issues. He was powerful enough that they had to listen (and respond) and thus made the Democratic debates much more issue- and platform-related.
What do the Republicans have? Two (non-celebrity) candidates who have no one strong enough to bring them back to issues. What would Huckabee and Ron Paul bring them back to? Abolishing the IRS? Widening I-95? Returning to the gold standard? Those aren’t issues, they’re rants. Neither McCain nor Romney (nor the voters) think they’re ideas really worth responding to. So Romney and McCain can bicker about whether or not Romney once said, nine months ago, that he supported (or didn’t support) the surge. There’s no one to bring them back, no force demanding they discuss how they’d deal differently about Iraq or Iran or the economy or immigration.
I think a cool debate would be to force each party to write a series of questions that dealt substantively with their issues, and then make both parties answer all the questions. They should each be able to write questions designed to make themselves look good and to make the other guys — of both parties — look bad. For example, I’d love to hear the democratic candidates answer a question about immigration, amnesty, and fence-building. I want to hear a Republican response about health care. I want to hear both parties discuss education reform. I don’t want to hear about Hillary’s fake “experience” nor about Obama’s voting record in the Illinois house, nor about Romney’s interview responses from before he was a candidate, not about McCain’s military-buddy endorsements.
I fear that Edwards departure from the race will make any pleasantness in the debates disappear. I hope this isn’t the case, but I fear that tonight’s Democratic debate will be the most petty, dirty, and acrimonious debate thus far. If it’s not, I can only imagine it is because Obama achieves some miracle of rising above Hillary’s dirty politicking. Though unless he sprouts wings, I can’t see how he could. She’s a toughie, that lady in the pantsuit.
As far as the Republicans, I’m happy that we’re done with debates until after super Tuesday. But I’m sad about what general election debates might look like when they arrive.
My biggest disappointment with Obama has been his inability to keep positive momentum against the Clinton machine. Maybe that’s unfair—can anyone keep positive momentum against that machine?—but that’s how I feel. What use is the feel good, inspirational candidate once he falls into the trap of endless defensiveness?
— Thom · Jan 31, 09:50 AM · #
“Some of the Democratic resistance to Obama’s magic comes from people who are wary of politicians who want to win their hearts. Every great candidate has golden moments when the campaign merges perfectly into the zeitgeist of the people. But sooner or later it passes, and you’re left with a tired, flawed human being making a pitch to crowds of slightly deflated citizens. One of Hillary’s selling points is that we’re pre-deflated. We’ve known her so well for so long.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/opinion/31collins.html
— Thom · Jan 31, 09:57 AM · #