Primary "Debates"

[cannon_fodder]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/something_less_than_a_debate.html

Great article complaining that political debates have become all politics and no debate.  After listening to the debates this year (or reading the transcript) I am no more clear on any candidates position than when I set out.

This article lambastes the republicans in particular, but the democratic contest was no better.  It gives blame to the host (who is said to have "made his mark" instead of allowind the candidates to do so and that "his questions betrayed his now familiar obsession with grand theories: silly forays into Karl Rove.") but also makes clear that any one candidate could have attempted to bring their platform to the front.

Where are we supposed to hear what these people actually stand for?  Statements of policy on web pages are vague and obtuse.  Questions from most reporters are either pointed, loaded, menial, or avoided.  Voting histories are a good indication but one has to look closely so as to see what was really being voted on (ie. voted against because too much pork or other obscure riders, or to appease their district, or whatever).

Since we have to vote in a primary a year or so before the election, I'd like to be able to get up to speed!

[Conan71]

I think candidates are still vague because they are watching focus groups and public opinion and no one wants to be stuck in too deep a hole as being one way or another should public opinion go in the opposite direction.  

Everyone is afraid to be labeled by rhetoric which will haunt them for the next, what, eight months till the first primaries.  Wait till about November, then you will have a better idea "who" these people are.

[MichaelC]

What did you expect to learn?  10 candidates in what, an hour and half?  They may have had an entire 8 minutes a piece sliced into 30 second answers.  And you expected what?  A doctoral dissertation?

We should b**** about this immediately.  I'm not sure why, I just know we should.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/something_less_than_a_debate.html

Great article complaining that political debates have become all politics and no debate.  After listening to the debates this year (or reading the transcript) I am no more clear on any candidates position than when I set out.

This article lambastes the republicans in particular, but the democratic contest was no better.  It gives blame to the host (who is said to have "made his mark" instead of allowind the candidates to do so and that "his questions betrayed his now familiar obsession with grand theories: silly forays into Karl Rove.") but also makes clear that any one candidate could have attempted to bring their platform to the front.

Where are we supposed to hear what these people actually stand for?  Statements of policy on web pages are vague and obtuse.  Questions from most reporters are either pointed, loaded, menial, or avoided.  Voting histories are a good indication but one has to look closely so as to see what was really being voted on (ie. voted against because too much pork or other obscure riders, or to appease their district, or whatever).

Since we have to vote in a primary a year or so before the election, I'd like to be able to get up to speed!

I think it's the extended stumping season that has brought about these informationless debates.  As soon as the '04 election was over the closet '08 geeks were running the numbers.

Who knows what the country might be facing a year from now, or as those like Obama and Hillary who have been at it for 6 months prior, a year and a half?

Positions and campaign issues that were interesting 6 months ago may not be important in another 6 months.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

(1)What did you expect to learn?  10 candidates in what, an hour and half? (2) They may have had an entire 8 minutes a piece sliced into 30 second answers.  (3)And you expected what?(4)  A doctoral dissertation?

1) I expected to learn the candidates basic position on several topics as well as get a feel for their ability to articulate answers, prepare for questions, and their speaking style.

2) I'm not sure, I read the transcript as linked above.  Each had several paragraphs to answer most questions.  Though they were filled with nonsense and pandering.

3) I expected to learn the candidates basic position on several topics as well as get a feel for their ability to articulate answers, prepare for questions, and their speaking style.

4) Actually, yes.  I would expect a candidate at this point to have his/her platform down as refined as a dissertation.  They should be able to present the section that pertains to the question asked in a minute or so in a clear, define and concise statement.  Much as a doctoral candidate is expected to do when defending ones dissertation.

You failed to respond to the substance of my post in any way shape or form.  I expressed a concern about the availability of information in our republican system required for effective governance.  I did so in a politically unbiased way without insulting or insinuating insult on anyone on this forum.  Your response could be summed up as "you're an idiot, you dont even know what you are complaining about."  I did not find it in the slightest bit informative, helpful, or an aid to discussion.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

You failed to respond to the substance of my post in any way shape or form.  I expressed a concern about the availability of information in our republican system required for effective governance.  I did so in a politically unbiased way without insulting or insinuating insult on anyone on this forum.  Your response could be summed up as "you're an idiot, you dont even know what you are complaining about."  I did not find it in the slightest bit informative, helpful, or an aid to discussion.

So the discussion is, "30 second sound bites don't do it for me, so let's complain."  

Fabulous, let's b****.  I strongly disagree that people should take the first debates for what they are, and research their own candidates.  I strongly disagree that candidates should say anything that isn't pertinent to me right now, everytime they open their mouths.  I can't believe I don't know everything I needed to know from those debates.  Who am I going to vote for?  What am I to do?

If you're making a broader statement about how the system sucks, and it needs massive overhaul, I agree.  Ignore the debates, vote 3rd Party every chance you get.

[cannon_fodder]

I guess the substance of my post was in this line:

quote:Where are we supposed to hear what these people actually stand for? Statements of policy on web pages are vague and obtuse. Questions from most reporters are either pointed, loaded, menial, or avoided. Voting histories are a good indication but one has to look closely so as to see what was really being voted on (ie. voted against because too much pork or other obscure riders, or to appease their district, or whatever).

Debates are a good opportunity for a candidate to clarify their position.  They do not take the opportunity to do so.  I do not expect to learn everything, but one would expect as I outlined above in response to your thesis quip.

My complaint is NOT with the fact that their dialog was not pertinent to me, it is that it was of no import at all ( I think that is what you were trying to say, it wasnt entirely clear).  I never even insinuated that you should know EVERYTHING from the debate.  In fact, I listed a whole host of other source that have become equally non-helpful.  That was the entire point.

I'm not sure you even read my posts.  I think you skim the first few lines and then post in opposition.  The statement I made WAS A VERY CLEAR AND BROAD STATEMENT that the system sucks.  It is nearly impossible to get a decent statement of position from most candidates.  I said that in the VERY first post on this thread and it was meant to be the ENTIRE POINT.

And vote third party?  Are you kidding.  The only state in the union to have 2 presidential choices in 2004.  The system sucks.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

And vote third party?  Are you kidding.  The only state in the union to have 2 presidential choices in 2004.  The system sucks.

Agreed.  I voted Harry Browne in 2000.  Complained mightily that I didn't have an option in 2004.

[cannon_fodder]

Then we agree.

/bookmark []