We have had enough debates — I know I have. When a debate is aired, every news channel and most of the talk shows can’t stop interpreting what was said. If you tune into a news report to find out what’s going on in the world, you first have to learn what Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have said about each other. Depending upon who said what, it may instead be comments between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Those four candidates have had more exposure than all the other candidates combined or any other news topic. With the amount of free coverage they have received, there really is no need for any of them to buy ads and spend their funds.
I certainly believe the Iowans must be tired of all the media that have gathered on every street corner of their state. I just saw a news break that showed Trump on a large stage before a huge audience immediately followed by Cruz in a coffee shop with a mike in his hand. It appeared some of the patrons in the shop were more interested in getting a cup of Joe than listening to yet another dose of rhetoric.
The debates have been relentless and endless and the questions seem redundant, or is it just me? About every other question sounds familiar as do the answers unless someone flip-flops as their opponents are happy to point out. The participants are not debating at this point. They are arguing and accusing one another of deeds long past, dredging up voting records that are not relevant. Of particular irritation is the fact many of the candidates, in each party’s debates, continue their arguments after being told their time has expired. More proof they have no understanding of debate etiquette.
The most recent debate by the Democrats presented three candidates: two account for 98 percent of the polled voters and the other garnered 2 percent. Why are they all participating? Martin O’Malley had to keep asking for time to speak. The other two just faced off ignoring him and the moderator most of the time.
As I see it, any candidate with less than 5 percent of the poll and little media attention should withdraw. Those Republican candidates that never made it to the main stage must know they don’t have a chance of being elected. So we wonder why they persist. Here is a thought: the super pacs are paying them to stay in the race.
The super pac came into existence following a 2010 federal court decision. It is an independent expenditure-only committee that may raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions, associations and individuals. They can then spend unlimited sums to advocate for or against political candidates.
To me, it seems to be just another way to buy a candidate with a lot of lengthy documentation to support the action.
I believe a person seeking office, who participates in a debate and makes claims which they later reverse more than once, should not be allowed to continue to seek election. It appears those that are changing their minds, and history, don’t honestly give careful thought to what they say. They simply respond with what they believe most people want to hear.
Once elected, if a candidate does not follow promises made during their speeches and debate appearances, they should be severely censured and monetarily fined for the offenses. In a court of law wouldn’t the practice be labeled perjury? (Willfully telling an untruth in court after taking an oath.)
Another suggestion regarding debate behavior is if those on stage are told they have a specific amount of time to respond and they exceed it — turn off their mikes. When they are asked a specific question they must first answer the question, and if time allows speak out to challenge one another. If one blusters and talks over their opponent, turn their mike off. The moderator should exercise control, not let the debaters have a free for all. If participants continuously break the clearly, defined rules, they should not be allowed to return to the debates.
I for one don’t tune in to see who can shout the loudest and be the most insulting. Most of us just want to know how a candidate stands on specific matters or how they would handle certain situations. The foreign relations questions at this time are of particular interest and we need to know how candidates will act on our behalf as our leader.
Many questions submitted to the debaters are asked by political groups or future politicians still in college who have a grasp of the topic they are putting forth. The moderators and their guests, at the very least, should be shown respect and allowed to control the flow of the debate. If a candidate has had a previous problem with a moderator, they should take it up with them at some other time. Viewers don’t tune in to see animosity displayed.
Perhaps the debaters have forgotten viewers may be making a choice for president of our great nation. They need to put their very best behavior suit on before they take the stage.