Not So Ready to Rumble

We saw the Presidential debate, or as much as we could stand of it, and the verdicts are all in: Dumpster fire, s***show. It was an international embarrassment for our country, just another one on the pile, and Donald Trump is getting the blame. If Joe Biden made any mistakes, we missed them, because Mr. Trump was so busy talking over him. But the two participants aside, what do we expect of these things?

For days leading up to this event, it was billed as a head-to-head battle. There was concern about whether Joe Biden could go the distance. We waited to see which side could  score points or draw the first blood. The promos made the debate sound almost like a heavyweight fight. I’m surprised we didn’t have Jim Lampley and Larry Merchant analyzing it.

Chris Wallace was criticized for being unable to control the debate. It’s not as if he doesn’t have an authoritarian voice, as his father did. But he couldn’t shout the President down. What he needed was the ability to kill Mr. Trump’s mic during interruptions, but he didn’t have it. Maybe that will be the rule for subsequent match-ups.

Tuesday night was just a reminder, though, that entirely too much weight isplaced on these debates. Personally, I think the Town Hall format is much more effective in showing us who the candidates really are. It’s one thing for candidates to dodge questions from a moderator or a panel of journalists, but dodging them from a regular citizen is quite another. We learn something about how a candidate interacts with what we might call “real” people.

At this point, the vast majority of us don’t even need debates. We’ve had a long time to see these two guys in action. They both have track records, and we have probably made up our minds. Even if we have just awakened from a long sleep, there are websites and maybe someone on a screen or speaker, on a newspaper editorial page, or in our life whose opinion we respect, to help us decide.

As I said earlier, though, my other concern is that so many of us are so anxious to have our ballots counted in this contest that we will rush to mail or deposit them or do early voting, and the state propositions, state and local candidates, and local measures won’t get the attention they deserve this year.

On the other hand, if we have all this extra time at home now, thanks to COVID, we can put it to good use.

 

 

Answer the Question!

So now the tables are turned, it’s open season on the media types running Presidential debates. When I was in the media, I sat on panels and frequently moderated these kinds of things myself. With all due respect to Dr. Carson, it’s not brain surgery.

The first, and simplest thing, is making candidates stick to the time limits. Now there’s discussion about buzzers, gongs, etc., to signal time is up. My favorite low-tech solution is a gavel. Everyone knows what that means, and repeated whacking when someone doesn’t shut up makes the speaker look bad.

The second important principle is forcing candidates to answer the questions -- which means interrupting the speaker if they evade or try to bring up a new topic. And if it means repeatedly asking the question to get an actual answer, it must be done. The panelist must be a bulldog.

If one candidate mentions another in a negative light, certainly the “victim” should be given the opportunity to respond – but it’s nobody else’s business.

Do media people ask stupid questions sometimes? To quote Sarah P., you betcha. Questions that goad one candidate into attacking another, for instance, should be absolutely off limits. Maybe this is a point where you need an impartial moderator who can knock a bad question down.

But are candidates’ past lives and statements fair game?  Absolutely! If there’s a “gotcha,” well, the audience needs to know two things – not just the quality of the explanation by the candidate, but also how the candidate reacts to the question. Calm? Defensive? Truthful? Evasive? We are electing human beings with personal qualities, which are sometimes more important than whether we agree with them on particular issues.

This is the big one, and it’s our job as audience members, not the media folks’. A candidate may be entertaining up there on the debate stage. But we have to mentally put that individual in front of the podium during a White House news conference, perhaps after an emergency. As President, every word that comes out of his or her mouth will be dissected and interpreted, and could have major national or international impact. Which of the people we are looking at now would we feel comfortable seeing in that situation?

The quality of these debates, or forums or whatever name we give them, may vary depending on the format or the questioners. But we learn something new every time. Even a little sunshine goes a long way,

Talked Out

Well, that’s it, the debates are done. Now, it’s pretty much our turn.

The only thing that made me watch the final debate instead of the World Series is that the debate was closer – but not by much.

President Obama clearly “won” it – but then again, he was supposed to, right? The guy on the outside – Romney – can’t very well compete with the guy on the inside, who has all the answers the challenger doesn’t. Mr. Romney seemed to be reaching for it, while Obama was scoring points the whole time. It was only when Romney was able to pivot the discussion from foreign policy to the economy that he was able to make much ground, except for the fact that we’ve heard his arguments before.

Romney did score a couple of points, in one case reminding us of the President’s off-mike remark to the Russian president that he could be more “flexible” after the election. He called Latin America a real opportunity (nobody EVER talks about Latin America) and blasted the President for failing to support the Green Revolution in Iran. But most of the time, Romney had to agree with the President’s policies.

So Obama won, and he may be scoring points in the final rounds. But what about the earlier rounds, and I’m not only talking about election season. His big failure all along, in my own estimation (and long before mine, in Bill Maher’s) is that he hasn’t made an effort to communicate with us. He holds almost no news conferences. He doesn’t bring the American people into the discussion – except at election time. Doing what you think is the right thing is only half the battle, Mr. President; you have to bring the rest of us along with you, and this you haven’t done.

Romney has all kinds of problems. He’ll say almost anything to please an audience, and he has trouble connecting with people. But when it comes to business, he definitely has a skill set the President doesn’t. Likewise, Mr. Obama has expertise built up over four years that Romney clearly lacks.

Do I sound like an undecided voter? I’m not. As I’ve told my friends, I’ve made up my mind whom I’m going to vote for. But you better talk to me again next week; I might feel differently.

My position is, we’re really ALL undecided voters until we actually cast that ballot. And fortunately, that moment is just about here.

Draw!

The "boxing" analysts are at it again: number of jabs, power punches thrown and connect percentages. I think Jim Lampley and Max Kellerman could score the Romney-Obama debate just as well as any of these cable TV folks or political science professors with all those letters after their names. The process, when all is said and done, is exactly the same.

The President redeemed himself after the first debate, and it may be that many observers are scoring him higher just because he outperformed himself after being knocked down in the last contest. But Romney didn’t do poorly.

What’s the takeaway? Debates measure debating skills. They tell us to what lengths the candidates will go to play to particular audiences. Were they talking to all of us, or just Ohio?

But as I’ve said before, these events do tell us how the candidates behave under stress; how they treat each other, the questioners and the moderator are all little pieces of the puzzle that contribute to their portraits as human beings.

I’ve always believed that whether we like it or not, we are electing human beings to office, not just five-point plans or positions on issues. And they are human beings with particular knowledge bases and skill sets, and as voters, we have to decide the urgency of various issues facing us and who has the best tools to deal with them. If the economy is No. 1, the businessman’s skill set is paramount; if foreign policy is our thing, then it’s no time for a “rookie” in that department. And who offers the better balance?

I also always try to remember that Presidents are rarely able to deliver on all the promises they make to get elected, and today’s problems, in their specifics, may not be tomorrow’s. If a particular issue goes away, we’re still left with a human being in office. The fact is, neither of these guys has the degree of control over things he’s trying to convince us he has. But what we do have the right to expect is, whatever challenges surface, we have someone at the top who can lead us through them.

If someone puts a gun to my head and says that I have to vote today, I know which one I’ll pick. But I’m NOT voting today. I may very well have a different answer in a couple of weeks.

Miles to Go Before We Sleep

“It ain’t over till it’s over,” quoth Yogi (did he really say that?). According to the “copybox numbers” most of the pundits are scoring the debate in Mitt Romney’s favor. President Obama had rhetorical weapons that he didn’t use, some said. The President is a great orator, but debating is actually a different skill from speechmaking. Romney did a better job of marshaling facts and figures, but Obama actually scored some solid counterpunches. Personally, I was pleased that the two men stuck to the issues and that the discussion was relatively zinger-free. My immediate conclusion is that that these are two very smart people, and in spite of what you may hear, the country is not going to collapse if either one is elected.

The debate really didn’t decide anything, but it sure leaves me wanting to hear the other ones on different topics, such as foreign policy. I feel a little bit sorry for those engaging in early voting. Undoubtedly, some had cast their vote before hearing the debate, which presumably would provide vital information about whom to vote for. I am in favor of early voting, but more like a week, not this early, as in Ohio.

As I said in a previous post, those voting this early may be depriving themselves of those final pieces of the puzzle that would give them a clear picture of these candidates. When it comes to jobs, I am of the firm belief that this is an issue that neither candidate has any real control over, and to pretend that they do is just babble.

Candidates say things in these forums that may or may not reflect their real beliefs. It’s up to us as observers to determine whether they’re being genuine, and whether they give us the feeling that they could lead. One CNN observer said we voters are looking for a Moses who could lead us all out of the mess we’re in. That may be aiming a little high, but the two Presidents whose last name was Roosevelt provided some pretty good models. Yes, I have a preference among the current two, but that preference could still change in the weeks ahead.

One individual who seemed to get universally bad reviews was Jim Lehrer, the PBS news anchor who was the moderator. I think I could solve the moderator’s problem by going down to the trophy shop and spending about $20 on a little thing called a GAVEL. I used to moderate local election debates in the town I lived in, and I found that there is nothing more effective at silencing candidates who are over-babbling. Even if they continue to talk while the gavel is being struck, they look and sound “out of order.” It would make a huge difference, trust me.

The Undecided Idiot

I am a big fan of Bill Maher, but I have to take issue with him on his opinion of undecided voters in this election.

Maher basically characterized the undecideds on a recent show as uninformed idiots. While I’m sure there are quite a few who fit that description, you don’t make it on NPR unless you have a brain cell or two, and I’ve heard their reporters talked to plenty of folks who are still on the fence.

Actually, it’s my belief that there is no such thing as a fence. I can’t stand fences, and I think most thinking human beings hate them. I make up my right away about most things. The only problem is, if you talk to me an hour later, I will likely have made a new decision the other way. What makes me change? Usually, it’s new information.

So here comes the first Presidential debate, which many pundits say may be the ultimate showdown between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. But what do debates accomplish? Detractors will say that they only tell us who’s the better debater. But that is no small skill, as an effective President has to be able to persuade, and persuasion is part of leadership. It’s another piece of information.

Some of us are waiting to see a train wreck: a gaffe, a stumble, an insensitive remark, or the betrayal of something the individual would prefer to hide. The fact is, both President Obama and Mitt Romney have been caught at these things already. Most recently, Romney has had to deal with the “47 percent” remark, but remember when Obama told the Russian he’d be more flexible after the election?

Information is one thing; of course, it’s all about what we do with it. Those who see virtue in having made up their minds for good will look for information in the debate that confirms their decision; otherwise, they’ll have to think of themselves as wishy-washy. Others may receive enough information to change their minds.

Yes, I’ve made up my mind about the man I think would make a better President, but I’m not ready to tell you, and I probably won’t be ready after Wednesday. There’s still time for new information – those final pieces of the puzzle -- to come along, and then I’ll do what I usually do, vote with my gut, which, all things being equal, has a pretty good track record at doing the right thing in these situations.

In Politics, It's Back to Business As Usual

So much for parties’ parties. The big political conventions are history, and there’s probably no question that for sheer presentation, the Democratic show eclipsed the Republican version. Of course, the Dems had a bigger hall, there was no hurricane to compete with, and they got to capitalize on the GOP’s mistakes. And then, there was Clint Eastwood, but that’s another story.

A friend rightly pointed out that the conventions are nothing but expensive infomercials, and I’d agree with that. Still, they do give us a view of the major-party candidates. While some people dismiss speechifying as simple fluff, the fact is that one of the skills a president needs is the ability to connect and inspire, especially at times when the country needs it -- even if the facts sometimes interfere with a good speech.

Now what? Well, for the moment at least, it’s (sadly) back to hit pieces and attack ads, which will likely increase in frequency and intensity. The conventional wisdom is that these “work,” although the electorate may be a little smarter than the campaign professionals think. Please forgive me if I seek refuge in NPR and PBS for a couple of months.

What we can look forward to are the upcoming debates. Here again, many may dismiss these as a simple display of particular skills, and it could be argued that the candidate who is the most effective debater isn’t automatically the most effective leader.

Even so, every view of the candidates in action, at conventions, in debates, one-on-one interviews by both serious journalists and late-night talk-show hosts, and even in dealing with the negative ads, furnish pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that have the potential to produce workable pictures of the people most of us will be voting for.

No doubt, many of us feel that our political system, in terms of the two major-party candidates, has left us with nothing but a bad choice. But at least we have one, and it would seem that the choice is pretty clear.

All that said, though, please forgive me when I say that I wish the calendar today read November 7 instead of September 7.

Fighters and Boxers

In the boxing world, sometimes it takes three fights between the same two rivals to determine who’s the better of the two. There are fighters, and then there are boxers.

John McCain is the fighter. He swings and tries to score on his opponent, not caring much about style – and he occasionally connects. Barack Obama is the boxer. He doesn’t usually throw knockout punches, but scores points with style and deftness.

If you watched Wednesday night’s debate, you saw McCain score points by painting Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal, which he is. McCain made convincing arguments about cutting federal spending. But can either of these guys actually come up with a radical new plan to fix the economy? That would have been the knockout punch, and it didn’t happen in that debate.

Obama had the clear advantage on health care, and McCain’s lame attempts to link him to reputed former terrorist William Ayers fell flat. As for Joe the Plumber, I don’t think he worked very well as a debate device, but with all the publicity he got, he should be able to buy his own business after all.

I did find Obama’s answer on appointments to the Supreme Court. It sounded an awful lot like he would employ a litmus test, and I agree with McCain, who said it should be all about the qualifications of the nominee. So how does he explain Sarah Palin?

With McCain, you can always tell where he stands by his facial expression and body language – he may be a good fighter, but he’s a terrible poker player. It’s not as easy to read Obama. Do you prefer passionate or inscrutable?

The pundits can pund all they want, but in a boxing match, it’s up to the three judges to come up with the official score – and the commentators are sometimes left with saying, “Where did that come from?”

In spite of all the polls, it’s clear to me that this race is not over by any means. Just like those at the press table at ringside, we’re going to have to wait for the judges’ decision next month.

There, now I’ve said it.

Advanatage, Obama

We always learn a little something in debates, almost in spite of the speechifying.

First, let’s agree to dispense with the words winning and losing, when we talk about performance. At the most you can say who did better and who did worse in Tuesday night’s town hall meeting.

Many voters want these guys to come up with a definitive plan to save the economy. Fact is, they don’t really have a clue. The best economic minds in the country are working on this now, and these two candidates are just lay people when it comes to this stuff.  John McCain’s suggestion (which he is not the first to make) that the government take charge of distressed home loans and renegotiate them to allow residents to stay in their homes makes perfect sense. But if you step back and ask which of these two men could be the most effective at pulling the nation through this crisis with him, I would say Obama has the advantage – at least that’s the one with whom I’m most comfortable.

I think McCain showed his age in the debate, pacing around in circles and petulantly calling Obama “that one” on one occasion. I also wish he’d stop using the words victory and defeat when talking about Iraq, though his closing remarks were eloquent indeed.

We’re all getting tired of what each of these candidates did in the past, or what they say they other guy did in the past -- and I wish both campaigns would learn that. If it comes down to which one I believe, at this moment, could best take us us into the future, even thought I disagree with him in many respects, it’s Obama.

But perhaps both hopefuls can take comfort in the fact that I won’t be mailing my absentee ballot in for a while yet.  I want to see what happens in the next episode.

There, now I’ve said it.

Great Expectations

There was no knockout, so as announcer Michael Buffer says,  after 12 rounds, we go to the scorecards.

Sarah Palin did a lot better than expected, though I thought all along she would do well. It’s about what she did well at. 

She looked right into the camera; she spoke plainly and with energy, and she connected with her audience.

But she didn’t answer some of the questions – at one point, even downright refusing to do so. She relied a lot on sloganeering and talking about the subjects she was comfortable with – energy and corruption on Wall Street. But could we follow her arguments? I felt kind of like a hunter trying to chase a fox down a  long, twisty path. I never knew where the path led, but it didn’t matter because I knew I would never catch the fox. 

As for Joe Biden, he, too, did better than expected, with a clear command of the issues and his arguments. But I thought he spent too much time looking backward, as Gov. Palin said, and while his energy level wasn’t bad, it didn’t come up to hers. He won most of the arguments, but not necessarily the points.

I think it’s safe to say that if John McCain is elected President, Sarah Palin will be the reason.

Only, please, God, don’t let anything happen to him.

There now I’ve said it.

Don't Take the Points

If you're counting on Joe Biden to put away Sarah Palin in the vice-presidential debate -- well, don't.

We've heard a lot about the bar being lowered so far that Palin only has to avoid stumbling to "win" the debate. But "winning" and "losing" are words that make almost as much sense in this context as they do in t he Iraq war.

First of all, Sarah Palin is not stupid,  and I have no doubt that she's a quick study. She's been going to debate camp. It's too bad the GOP couldn't have let her cut her teeth on some more interviews, so she'd be more comfortable. But she's going to do just fine in this debate situation.

So what does a debate actually tell you? It's a great measure of debating skills, and some are just plain better at that than others. Palin may actually out-debate Joe Biden.

But what it all comes down to is this: Would you rather have a quick study who does a credible job after two weeks of debate camp, or someone with 30 years of experience dealing with foreign policy issues and with a solid knowledge of how government works as your next vice-president?

It all comes down to that.

There, now I've said it.

Out of the Park

If I hear the expression “hit it out of the park” one more time, I’m sure I will commit a felony, though what section of the penal code that will involve, I’m not sure of yet.

We’re Americans, and we have to score everything. In the big debate, neither McCain nor Obama hit it out of the park, the analysts said. But hey, was there a ground rule double, a bunt, or a sacrifice fly? I guess most people had it a draw.

Did you notice the approval bars that CNN was running continuously through the contest, to show how various constituencies were reacting? What exactly did it tell you? But hey, it’s a score.

Go on the Internet. Everything is rated from one to five stars. We all are assigned credit scores (not that those are of any particular use right now). No matter how good an eBay seller you are, there’s always somebody that wants to give you a low score and bust your average. It’s inevitable.

How good a life have we all led, on a scale of 1 to 10? I  guess I’ve done a passable job so far, but if I had my druthers, I think I’d rather have it expressed in a pie chart that a graph. As long as I get to enjoy some of the pie.

There, now I've said it.

Copybox Numbers

You have no idea what the title of this post means unless you watch HBO Boxing. They use Copybox numbers to keep track  punches thrown,  e.g., Rocky threw 140 jabs and 25 percent connected, while Bruiser threw 60 power punches and 10 percent landed.

Then the boxing analysts go to work. It's usually Jim Lampley and Larry Merchant, along with former heavyweight champ Lennox Lewis and sometimes the unofficial ringside scorer (and former dentist, I think) Harold Lederman. But even they can't tell you who won.

Assuming it's not an obvious knockout, that determination is made by the three official ringside judges. They may lead  to a completely different conclusion than those of all the analysts, but it's their decisions that count.

So how did I score the debate, you ask? Or maybe you didn't. Well, in general, I thought Obama held his own and displayed a more global or comprehensive grasp of the issues than did McCain -- but McCain fared a lot better than people thought he might, and scored points with his "been theres" and "done thats" Some made a big deal of his struggling with the pronunciation of the president of Iran's name. But hey, I used to be in broadcasting, and I can't do it.

The bottom line, of course, is that neither man scored  a clear victory,  leaving viewers and listeners wanting more.

But debates test just one set of skills, and we can't depend on these to form our opinions, if we're fair.  How do the candidates  perform in one-on-one extended interviews,  in town-hall meetings, even in Saturday Night Live show-ups? If the media are doing their jobs, their fact-checking keeps track of the lies told. All these elements go into the crock pot. After a little stewing, we can serve up an informed opinion.

Please give yourself permission NOT to have an opinion yet.  This is a really important vote you'll be casting. No one will hold it against you if you take your time.

There,  now I've said it.