If
the poll and the overall mood of the nation are anything to go by, it appears
the Democrats are on track to receive an emphatic drubbing in the midterms.
The
Democrats have their fingerprints on most hardships Americans are suffering
from such as inflation, sky-high gas prices, the crime wave, the fentanyl
crisis, the influx of illegal aliens and so much more.
Consequently,
several high-profile Democrats have refused to participate in debates against
their GOP challengers.
U.S.
Sen. Maggie Hassan declined
to debate Republican challenger Don Bolduc for the New Hampshire
Senate Seat. Hassan’s campaign revealed the incumbent would participate only if
it were “a stand-alone forum, not a debate.” Hassan has also insisted that
Bolduc not be present.
The
next dodger is from Arizona.
Democrat
Gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs declined
to debate Republican Kari Lake. Her excuse was that debating a conspiracy
theorist like Kari Lake “would only lead to constant interruptions,
pointless distractions, and childish name-calling.”
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1581646154688876544
Lake
excoriated Hobbs for her dogging and for Hobbs’s record of racism recently
on CNN.
https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1582065550196281344
The
next dodgers are from Pennsylvania
Democratic
Attorney General Josh Shapiro is running against GOP State Sen. Doug Mastriano.
Mastriano proposed that both he and Shapiro be allowed would pick moderators of
choice and field questions from both during an October debate. Shapiro refused to
engage in any debate.
There
are dodgers who have reluctantly agreed to be part of debates, perhaps seeing
their declining poll numbers.
Senate
Candidate John Fetterman, also repeatedly declined to debate his GOP rival Dr.
Oz., which raised concerns about Fetterman's
health. Fetterman recently agreed to participate in a single debate
on October 25, it remains to be seen if Fetterman fulfills his commitment.
Sen.
Patty Murray (D-Wash.) had declined to debate his GOP challenger Tiffany
Smiley on multiple occasions, however, he consented to a single debate recently.
Sen.
Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) only recently agreed to
engage in a single debate with his Republican challenger Herschel Walker which
occurred a few days ago.
After
dodging myriad debate challenges, Democrat Attorney General
candidate Andrea Campbell agreed to debate her Republican
opponent Jay McMahon on Oct. 20
Democrat
Auditor nominee state Sen. Diana DiZoglio agreed to debate her Republican
challenger Anthony Amor only if the third-party candidates are allowed to
participate. This was an innovative way to dodge debates. However, she agreed
to a debate recently, which occurred a
few days back.
Some
Democrats are reluctant to even debate the members of their own party. AG Maura
Healey repeatedly sidestepped debate requests from gubernatorial primary
opponent state Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz, in the end, she agreed
to participate in two primary debates.
So
are these debates really important?
This merits a look back at the
milestones of political debating history.
The Kennedy-Nixon Presidential debate
held in 1960 revealed something about audiences in general. Those who heard
that debate on the radio thought Nixon won, while 70 million who watched it on TV thought
Kennedy won.
Clearly, the viewers of the televised
debate were focused on body language and on-screen charisma.
Nixon had a tendency to perspire under
the bright television lights and was awkward and uncomfortable on camera.
Kennedy was the opposite, he had movie star charisma and was very relaxed before
camera like a performer.
Debates hence could be very unfair
because the audiences were either knowingly or unknowingly distracted by the physical
appearance of the candidates and end up ignoring the content of
their utterances.
During the vice presidential debate in
1988, between GOP candidate Senator Dan Quayle and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, the
former happened to mention President John F. Kennedy during his remarks. Bentsen
seized the opportunity to insult Quayle with "Senator, I served with Jack
Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of
mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Quayle
didn't have much of a comeback to that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYAZkczhdMs
It was unfair to adjudicate a
90-minute debate on a 1-minute insult, but that is exactly what the Democrats
and their media operatives attempted to do. They called it the defining
moment not just of the debate but also of the race.
The public didn’t think so, Bush and
Quayle defeated Dukakis and Bentsen by a comfortable 8% of the popular
vote. Dukakis and Bentsen won just ten states.
However to this day the ‘you're no
Jack Kennedy’ moment is referred to when ‘pundits’ are on TV panels to discuss
debates.
The moment may
have tarnished Quayle's legacy permanently.
So if it is about physical appearance
and amateur theatrics, are debates really worth being part of?
Yes!
We are living in times where campaign
events, speeches, and perhaps some TV interviews are meticulously planned and
staged. Even mundane acts such as handshakes are vetted by
consultants and pollsters. Even decide the race of an individual sitting in the
front row or standing behind a candidate is decided in advance.
This stage management is just restricted
to campaign events, even the January 6th hearings were staged
by hiring a TV producer.
Every syllable in a speech is examined
with a fine toothcomb. When a candidate often read off a teleprompter and
performs for a camera like an actor playing a part in a stage play.
Teleprompters aren’t always a
guarantee that matters will proceed smoothly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toMcQVfLCyQ
Back to the debates.
Live debates
are the only forums where the voters have an opportunity to see their potential
representatives in relatively high-pressure and unscripted situations. The
assumption made here is that questions are not
known in advance by any of the participants and there
are earpieces.
On occasions, the person behind the
persona crafted by campaign strategists is exposed.
In recent times, debates have played a
significant role in electoral contests.
Back in 2016, Donald Trump used the
debates effectively not only to triumph over his GOP opponents during the
primaries but also to establish himself as a candidate who is not beholden to
the Washington Establishment and who will drain the swamp.
Following the leak of the Access
Hollywood Tape, all Democrats, many Republicans, and most of the media
claimed it was the end of Trump’s candidacy. Some even urged him to drop out of
the race.
Trump entered the second debate like a
man on a mission, within minutes he put Hilary on the defense and by the end of
the debate shut down all the naysayers and even his worst critics. Hillary
despite her experience and reputation of being bright, lost the debate despite
entering it with a perceived advantage.
The debates may not always reveal too
much, but they still are a worthy exercise.
As for the debate dodgers.
Both Kari Lake and Doug Mastriano must
make debate dodgers one of the items to focus on as the mid-term date
approaches.
Perhaps release adverts that convey
the message that “if they cannot stand up to me in a debate, how can they stand
up for you the citizen." They can even quote Obama who said “The only
people who don’t want to disclose the truth are the people with something to
hide.”
Hopefully, the voters will reject these
cowardly dodgers.
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment