Rules of Engagement: "The" Debate

[Guest]

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT - CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY, The New Yorker online, Posted 2004-09-27

At no time during these debates shall either candidate move from their designated area behind their respective podiums. —From the agreement worked out for the Presidential debates.

Paragraph Two: Dress. Candidates shall wear business attire. At no time during the debates shall either candidate remove any article of clothing, such as tie, belt, socks, suspenders, etc. Candidates shall not wear helmets, padding, girdles, prosthetic devices, or “elevator”-type shoes. Per above, candidates shall not remove shoes or throw same at each other during debate. Once a debate is concluded, candidates shall be permitted to toss articles of clothing, excepting underwear, into the audience for keepsake purposes.

Paragraph Six: Hand gestures. “Italian,” “French,” “Latino,” “Bulgarian,” or other ethnic-style gestures intended to demean, impugn, or otherwise derogate opponent by casting aspersions on opponent’s manhood, abilities as lover, or cuckold status are prohibited. Standard “American”-style gestures meant to convey honest bewilderment, doubt, etc., shall be permitted. Candidates shall not point rotating index fingers at their own temples to imply that opponent is mentally deranged. Candidates shall at no time insert fingers in their own throats to signify urge to vomit. Candidates shall under no circumstances insert fingers into opponent’s throat.

Paragraph Seventeen A: Bodily fluids-Perspiration. Debate sponsors shall make every effort to maintain comfortable temperature onstage. Candidates shall make reasonable use of underarm deodorant and other antiperspirant measures, subject to review by Secret Service, before the debates. In the event that perspiration is unavoidable, candidates may deploy one plain white cotton handkerchief measuring eight inches square. Handkerchief may not be used to suggest that opponent wants to surrender in global war on terrorism.

Paragraph Forty-two: Language. Candidates shall address each other in terms of mutual respect (“Mr. President,” “Senator,” etc.). Use of endearing modifiers (“my distinguished opponent,” “the honorable gentleman,” “Pookie,” “Diddums,” etc.) is permitted. The following terms are specifically forbidden and may not be used until after each debate is formally concluded: “girlie-man,” “draft dodger,” “drunk,” “ignoramus,” “Jesus freak,” “frog,” “bozo,” “wimp,” “toad,” “lickspittle,” “rat bastard,” “polluting bastard,” “lying bastard,” “demon spawn,” “archfiend,” or compound nouns ending in “-hole” or “-ucker.”

Paragraph Fifty-eight: Spousal references. Each candidate may make one reference to his spouse. All references to consist of boilerplate praise, e.g., “I would not be standing here without [spouse’s first name]” or “[Spouse’s name] would make a magnificent First Lady.” Candidates shall not pose hypothetical scenarios involving violent rape or murder of opponent’s spouse so as to taunt opponent with respect to his views on the death penalty.

Paragraph Ninety-eight: Vietnam. Neither candidate shall mention the word “Vietnam.” In the event that either candidate utters said word in the course of a debate, the debate shall be concluded immediately and declared forfeit to the third-party candidate.

 

[Liar]

 

[snooper]

... and ANOTHER. (See here.)

 

[Pure]

probably the real rules, 30pp of them, are almost as funny as these made up ones.

 

[Vincent E]

These are not debates. We do not have debates in America any longer. We have controlled arguments. Trading soundbites. Stand-up politicians with duelling one-liners.

I am amused each time the press or the politicians describe these debates as "Lincoln-Douglas Style." Lincoln and Douglas had an elaborate debating process for a more patient time. The first speaker would talk for about 90 minutes. The second debater would speak for two hours uninterrupted. Then the first speaker would speak for another 30-60 minutes. They concluded, shook hands and left.

Now it is nothing more than trading 30-second barbs. Eah candidate has about 15-20 minutes in a 60 minue debate on TV to communicate any type of information. Moreover, the negative debating, "I'll tell you why my opponent is unfit, uneducated, uninformed, and unworthy of this great office to which I aspire for my own agrandizement," takes up most of the time.

Also, the TV personalities who ask the questions draw as much attention to themselves.

"Governeor Dukakis, if your wife were raped and murdered..."
"Stick a sock in it Bernard, will you. We are here to give our belifs in the political realm, not to give you the chance to try and hijack this process so you can get your name in the paper tomorrow."
Really, it was a shameful question. And I was not a Dukakis supporter, except to maybe inflict him on all of you.

True debates would be too much of a challenge for the media to broadcast (except C-Span perhaps) and for the public to watch. If the soundbite is any longer than 20-seconds the people lose attention.

"John Kennedy was a friend of mine; and you're no John Kennedy." Lloyd Benson
"I'm all ears." Ross Perot

Yeah, it's amusing, but is it really informative.

In 2002, John Kerry was up for re-election here. He had no Republican opponent so he refused to debate the Libertarian candidate. Several radio stations offered to broadcast a debate, but the Kerry campaign must have lost their number. There may not have been anything for him to gain, and there was little for him o lose. it was unfathomable then and now that a third-party candidate would upset a three term incumbent. He really has not had any debating experience since 1996.

Bush went through debates, not very memorabe ones as far as I am concerned, in 2002 with Gore. B-O-R-I-N-G. Let us just hpoe that he has learned a lesson from dad: leave the watch at home.

I think that the ease-of-television style that has been adopted over the decades is perhaps the least informative that has been created. To much of the focus is style over substance. The conventions have this year, once and for all, proven themselves to be the most useless exercises in self-congradulatory overindulgence devised since the Hollywood awards programs. I think that there is little hope that the debates will actually give us anything other than the reaffirmation of feelings we already have about the two candidates.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

Dammit and here I was hoping the debate was going to be a lot like naked Fear Factor. Fuck it, I'll be watching The TV Guide Channel.

 

[DirtyJJ]

These are not debates. We do not have debates in America any longer. We have controlled arguments. Trading soundbites. Stand-up politicians with duelling one-liners.


I think that the ease-of-television style that has been adopted over the decades is perhaps the least informative that has been created. To much of the focus is style over substance. The conventions have this year, once and for all, proven themselves to be the most useless exercises in self-congradulatory overindulgence devised since the Hollywood awards programs. I think that there is little hope that the debates will actually give us anything other than the reaffirmation of feelings we already have about the two candidates.

Vincent, I couldn't agree with you more... on pretty much everything you said.
[color=f1f1f1]and it's not just because I think you're hot.[/color]
I couldn't stomach watching the conventions, and I was thinking of forcing myself to watch the debates but I think it will be a huge waste of time, sadly.

I think I'd rather vote for Stewie.

Thank you for posting this perdita.... it was a good laugh.

 

[Vincent E]

Besides, politically speaking I made my mind up ages ago.
You have to alternate and use only the white fields. the gray gives it away.
Did anyone who watched them tonight get anything out of this debate, or did it merely reinforce what you already believed. These debates are basically for that very small percentage of the population that is still sitting on the fence.
I think you're hot too.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I went into the debate with roughly the same expectations as Vincent E. I was pleasantly surprised. I did think that there was at least one awful question (something about character - open incitement to mud-slinging), but on the whole I was pleased to see the candidates actually discussing the pros and cons of bilateral vs. multilateral talks with North Korea and specific steps to take on the security front. There were, of course, the obligatory soundbites/"Message" transmission - Bush was pounding home the "mixed messages" line, while Kerry seemed determined to refer to his service in Vietnam in even the most unlikely contexts - but it was worth watching.

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I had to write an opinion editorial about the debate tonite. All in all, I thought it was excellent.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I enjoyed the debates. Nothing was said that changed my mind though. I did like seeing the candidates complement each other and leave out the mudslinging.
Kerry impressed me with his strong responses. Bush disappointed me with his more laid back Um's and slouched posture. Bush should of responsed to his policys with a firmer voice and straight back. That shows leadership. Not responding with "My admiinistration has , um, always believed, um......."
Kerry was sure of himself. Not that I believe in his policies, but he did much better in his responses.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lord DragonsWing
I enjoyed the debates. Nothing was said that changed my mind though. I did like seeing the candidates complement each other and leave out the mudslinging.
Kerry impressed me with his strong responses. Bush disappointed me with his more laid back Um's and slouched posture. Bush should of responsed to his policys with a firmer voice and straight back. That shows leadership. Not responding with "My admiinistration has , um, always believed, um......."
Kerry was sure of himself. Not that I believe in his policies, but he did much better in his responses.

I don't entirely agree. Bush appeared to be genuinely considering his words, and I was impressed by that. It was as though he was taking the questions and formulating his own responses, rather than being formulaic--that was the sense I was left with.

Kerry fell behind with references to "The President hasn't done X", and Bush saying "But X did happen" and giving examples. Whether accurate or not, it made Kerry look like he wasn't considering all the facts of his position.

I think Kerry should get the vote, but he didn't do so well in that debate. Bush was pretty consistent and solid, even if that meant taking the conversational style he did.