Clue Birds Diving In for the 2nd "Presidential" "Debate"

Calling the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton at Hofstra a Presidential Debate is a non sequitur. It was certainly not Presidential. Two unpopular and divisive candidates slinging personal accusations across the divide for 90 minutes was merely an extension of their campaign ads, which could just as easily have been shown in lieu of their appearance.

And a “debate?” Hardly. Go to any college or high school debate and you will see proscriptions against argumentum ad hominem, attacks on your opponents’ personality or motives, rather than responding to the fallacies of their positions. This first debate was both fiasco and anachronism.

To lessen the fiasco factor going forward, and to make the next debate actually highlight the candidates’ positions, prescriptions and character, here are a couple suggestions for the candidates and organizers/moderators.

Clue Bird #1 for Mr. Trump: You made some important points and even a couple of good zingers like "I will release my tax returns… when she releases her 33,000 emails that have been deleted." Now. Shut. Up. You don’t need to fill the entire 2 minutes with unrelated “and one other thing” blah-blah-blah that obscures the importance of what you said. Your tax returns are back-fence gossip but the lives of Americans, and those of our allies, are endangered when classified documents are mishandled. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Clue Bird #2 for Mr. Trump: Thicken your skin. You don’t have to defend every lawsuit you faced in business, every debt you took on, every mistake you ever made. There’s a target at the other podium who has done the same or worse. Stop wasting our time telling us what an angel you are. We know you aren’t. Neither is your opponent. Pretend you’re in 5th grade. “Me-eee??? What about her?!” The best defense is a good offense.

Clue Bird #1 for Secretary Clinton: Enough with the imperiousness. Yes, the Republicans threw you a softball. Yes, you have the slickest campaign team in the business. Yes, you are the front-runner. But in case you haven’t noticed he’s gaining. If looking-down-your-nose elitism is your idea of seeming Presidential, it isn’t working. It looks smug, dull and patronizing.

Clue Bird #2 for Secretary Clinton: People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Clinton Foundation shenanigans, acceptance of massive sums from Wall Street, shady business dealings in the past, and your failure to observe basic security protocols are all yuge vulnerabilities. All Mr. Trump has to do is note that sacrosanct posturing is out of sync with the past record and current opacity. So much for the fiasco that was the first debate.

What anachronism makes it likely future debates will be no better? The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is the organization that sets the rules of engagement for these debates. If you are like most Americans, you probably believe this to be some grand assembly of responsible journalists, academics and other luminaries above the fray of partisan politics.

You’d be wrong. The CPD is comprised of Republican and Democratic party faithful. It is co-chaired by a former head of the Republican National Committee and a former press secretary for Bill Clinton. The members are the ultimate party insiders at a time when Americans are more and more fed up with insiders.

They seem to have but one common interest: prevent anyone outside their two parties from gaining national exposure. At a time when the greatest number of Americans say they are torn by the prospect of voting for a presidential candidate they consider only the lesser of two evils, the CPD has again decreed that Americans will not have the privilege of seeing any candidate with a platform that may reflect other views.

It’s time to replace the CPD. Allowing other viewpoints may be terrifying to them, but more enlightening to voters. As an example, 62% of Americans in a recent poll say they would like to hear from Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson.

 That’s significant, given that some 38% of us, no matter how we registered, identify ourselves as political independents. Governor Johnson and his Vice-Presidential pick, William Weld, are former Republicans who won their gubernatorial races in heavily-Democratic states where the voters were fed up with rising taxes, regulations and bloated bureaucracies. Both were term-limited after being overwhelmingly re-elected for a second term. Might we not benefit from learning what Democratic voters found so effective that they chose to re-elect these men?

I seek to learn three things about a possible POTUS: the candidate’s platform, their prescriptions to fix the problems we face, and whether they are a person of good character. I’m guessing any third podium attendee would win at least one of those -- including a randomly-selected 5th-grader.

Finally, Clue Bird for the moderators. The moderator should be "one who moderates." So get control of the microphones. In the first fiasco, two minutes became 2:30 and respect for your opponent was tossed in favor of using the podium as a bully pulpit by interrupting each other every few seconds. ("Did not." "Did TOO." Did NOT.")

How about: at the 1:45 mark, the candidates see a red light. At 2:00, their mic goes dead. They can take their silent time to listen to their opponent and take notes for their rebuttal. Of course, they also can grimace, posture and pout like a 2nd-grader, but remember, we are trying to elevate these debates an order of magnitude to at least the 5th-grade level.

Americans are not nearly as stupid or manipulable as the sound-bites, pollsters, and media strategists for the two parties seem to think we are. Most of us have but one request this year: let us make an informed decision by hearing positions and prescriptions.  It may just be too late for character this go-'round.

  

Clue Birds Diving In for the 2nd "Presidential" "Debate"

Calling the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton at Hofstra a Presidential Debate is a non sequitur. It was certainly not Presidential. Two unpopular and divisive candidates slinging personal accusations across the divide for 90 minutes was merely an extension of their campaign ads, which could just as easily have been shown in lieu of their appearance.

And a “debate?” Hardly. Go to any college or high school debate and you will see proscriptions against argumentum ad hominem, attacks on your opponents’ personality or motives, rather than responding to the fallacies of their positions. This first debate was both fiasco and anachronism.

To lessen the fiasco factor going forward, and to make the next debate actually highlight the candidates’ positions, prescriptions and character, here are a couple suggestions for the candidates and organizers/moderators.

Clue Bird #1 for Mr. Trump: You made some important points and even a couple of good zingers like "I will release my tax returns… when she releases her 33,000 emails that have been deleted." Now. Shut. Up. You don’t need to fill the entire 2 minutes with unrelated “and one other thing” blah-blah-blah that obscures the importance of what you said. Your tax returns are back-fence gossip but the lives of Americans, and those of our allies, are endangered when classified documents are mishandled. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Clue Bird #2 for Mr. Trump: Thicken your skin. You don’t have to defend every lawsuit you faced in business, every debt you took on, every mistake you ever made. There’s a target at the other podium who has done the same or worse. Stop wasting our time telling us what an angel you are. We know you aren’t. Neither is your opponent. Pretend you’re in 5th grade. “Me-eee??? What about her?!” The best defense is a good offense.

Clue Bird #1 for Secretary Clinton: Enough with the imperiousness. Yes, the Republicans threw you a softball. Yes, you have the slickest campaign team in the business. Yes, you are the front-runner. But in case you haven’t noticed he’s gaining. If looking-down-your-nose elitism is your idea of seeming Presidential, it isn’t working. It looks smug, dull and patronizing.

Clue Bird #2 for Secretary Clinton: People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Clinton Foundation shenanigans, acceptance of massive sums from Wall Street, shady business dealings in the past, and your failure to observe basic security protocols are all yuge vulnerabilities. All Mr. Trump has to do is note that sacrosanct posturing is out of sync with the past record and current opacity. So much for the fiasco that was the first debate.

What anachronism makes it likely future debates will be no better? The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is the organization that sets the rules of engagement for these debates. If you are like most Americans, you probably believe this to be some grand assembly of responsible journalists, academics and other luminaries above the fray of partisan politics.

You’d be wrong. The CPD is comprised of Republican and Democratic party faithful. It is co-chaired by a former head of the Republican National Committee and a former press secretary for Bill Clinton. The members are the ultimate party insiders at a time when Americans are more and more fed up with insiders.

They seem to have but one common interest: prevent anyone outside their two parties from gaining national exposure. At a time when the greatest number of Americans say they are torn by the prospect of voting for a presidential candidate they consider only the lesser of two evils, the CPD has again decreed that Americans will not have the privilege of seeing any candidate with a platform that may reflect other views.

It’s time to replace the CPD. Allowing other viewpoints may be terrifying to them, but more enlightening to voters. As an example, 62% of Americans in a recent poll say they would like to hear from Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson.

 That’s significant, given that some 38% of us, no matter how we registered, identify ourselves as political independents. Governor Johnson and his Vice-Presidential pick, William Weld, are former Republicans who won their gubernatorial races in heavily-Democratic states where the voters were fed up with rising taxes, regulations and bloated bureaucracies. Both were term-limited after being overwhelmingly re-elected for a second term. Might we not benefit from learning what Democratic voters found so effective that they chose to re-elect these men?

I seek to learn three things about a possible POTUS: the candidate’s platform, their prescriptions to fix the problems we face, and whether they are a person of good character. I’m guessing any third podium attendee would win at least one of those -- including a randomly-selected 5th-grader.

Finally, Clue Bird for the moderators. The moderator should be "one who moderates." So get control of the microphones. In the first fiasco, two minutes became 2:30 and respect for your opponent was tossed in favor of using the podium as a bully pulpit by interrupting each other every few seconds. ("Did not." "Did TOO." Did NOT.")

How about: at the 1:45 mark, the candidates see a red light. At 2:00, their mic goes dead. They can take their silent time to listen to their opponent and take notes for their rebuttal. Of course, they also can grimace, posture and pout like a 2nd-grader, but remember, we are trying to elevate these debates an order of magnitude to at least the 5th-grade level.

Americans are not nearly as stupid or manipulable as the sound-bites, pollsters, and media strategists for the two parties seem to think we are. Most of us have but one request this year: let us make an informed decision by hearing positions and prescriptions.  It may just be too late for character this go-'round.