OK, I've watched the second debate. Painful as it was. But that's only because of my personality Type; INFP. You see, I think words matter. And I wouldn't have stayed in the same room with John McCain after hearing some of his lies. But that's just me and I suppose politicians are used to it. They have to be or the Senate would be a lonely place indeed. But it bothers me enough that I have to leave the room at times!
I'm not happy with the Town Hall style of debate. Although I must say that the questions were good ones. Truly better than I thought they would be. But there isn't the time allowed for good give and take in the answers. And neither candidate answered the last question which was easily the best of evening. "What don't you know and what will you do to learn it?"
My ideal forum for debate does not have an audience. That stops the pandering. "My friends…" at the beginning of a declaration by a candidate is simply a warning that a lie is about to be issued as gospel. I would like to see both candidates and a moderator sitting at a table and 'discussing' the issues. Not using the same tired clichés that we have come to expect. I want to see the candidates using their minds. That's the part of their body that we're paying for, not flapping lips.
I like what you said was your ideal debate. Our Canadian leadership debates were conducted that way and I found them quite edifying. I watched a bit of the first American presidential debate and found it hard to watch, too much speechifying! I didn't watch the vice-presidential debate because it coincided with the second Canadian debate, and much as I was curious to see Palin and Biden in action, the Canadian debate was just more interesting and of course hit closer to home for me.
ReplyDeleteA little while ago I learned that the last debate will be more my style. I hope so. And the Town Hall format seemed 'staged'...almost as if those who asked the questions were given a card to read when it was their turn.
ReplyDelete