rsl12

I think you're idealizing too much. When Lincoln and Douglas debated, they were debating in the hopes of changing people's vote, the same way that Bush and Kerry tried to change people's votes during their debates. Though the Illinois senator may have been voted by the legislatures in those days, it probably made political sense to address the debates to the general public, just as it makes sense for Tony Blair to address the general public in an appeal for support, and not the house of commons.

But do you really think that speeches on the senate and house floor were not full of grandstanding back in the day? For as long as speeches have been made part of public record, I'm guessing that 'debates' on the senate floor are about convincing voters more than convincing other senators. In that sense, both election debates and debates on proposed bills are consistent--they are both about convincing the public that Senator X is a good senator.

You say that it's a bad thing you know how Utswo will respond to a given topic--I say it's a good thing. I mean, isn't it great that you know how your wife will react to a particular circumstance? It marks a certain level of understanding of her personality. That's absolutely a good thing!

The fact that nothing gets solved during a political debate should come as no surprise. The politically hottest topics always have, as their core issue, certain inviolable principles held by individuals, and these principles cannot be 'argued' away. It is, indeed, rare to see someone say, 'oh, I haven't thought of that.', and rarer still to see such a remark that doesn't have as an addendum, "even so, that doesn't change my mind." But I think that's the nature of politics, whether today or a century ago.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.