Some interesting FACTS about the debates.... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 10-04-2004, 09:54 AM

When I found out about this, I went searching for a dependable source of information, not just some paranoid 'government is evi'l website.
I decided that NPR, or National Public Radio, is a respected newsgroup that has been dependable. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4052162
I know that it sounds crazy, but it's all true. It kinda makes you take a long hard look at Nader...

Please post content, not just links.
And I agree, this could go in "Politics", so as you asked, it's been moved there.

-lebell

Connie Rice: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates
Listen

The Tavis Smiley Show, September 29, 2004 · After weeks of political wrangling, Sen. John Kerry and President Bush will square off for the first of three key presidential debates. Both camps have agreed to an elaborate, 32-page contract that spells out everything from the size of the dressing rooms to permitted camera angles.

But the controversy over the debates threatens to overshadow the events themselves. Some citizen groups complain that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) isn't as non-partisan as it should be, and that Kerry and Bush won't be pressed on urban issues. Commentator Connie Rice says that's just the tip of the iceberg, and she's got another Top 10 list -- this time: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.

(10.) They aren't debates!

"A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue," Rice says. "Under the ridiculous 32-page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent's points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions -- that's not a debate, that's a news conference."

(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.

"The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot, and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986."

(8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.

"CPD should stand for 'Cloaking-device for Party Deceptions' -- it is not an independent commission on anything. The CPD is under the total control of the Republican and Democratic parties and by definition bipartisan, not non-partisan. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an 'unconscionable fraud.'"

(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.

"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy."

(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.

"This is what I call the Obstruction of Democratic Debate Rule, which sets an impossibly high threshold for third-party candidates... Where are we, Russia? Isn't Vladimir Putin wiping out democracy in Russia by excluding all opposing candidates from the airwaves during his re-election campaigns? Most new ideas come from third parties -- they should be in the debates."

(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.

"It's not enough to rig the debate -- they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: 'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance."

(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."

"Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

(3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.

"Other than the stupidity of the debate contract, what topic do you know that can be extendedly discussed in 30 seconds?"

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

"Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."

(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

The CPD is run by Frank Fahrenkopf, a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk, a top gambling lobbyist," Rice says. "And the biggest muliti-national corporations write the checks that fund the CPD -- Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and dozens more. The audience may have to be silent and motionless, but the corporate sponsors can have banners, beer tents, Budweiser girls handing out pamphlets protesting beer taxes -- a corporate-sponsored circus to go along with the Kabuki Debates. Could we get a more fitting description of our democracy?"

saut · 10-04-2004, 10:46 AM

It really is disgusting how *controlled* every aspect of our political landscape is today. Thanks for the link.

Bill O'Rights · 10-04-2004, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It kinda makes you take a long hard look at Nader...

Or...oh, I dunno...Badnarik!

Willravel · 10-04-2004, 11:36 AM

haha, that's true..

Paradise Lost · 10-04-2004, 07:12 PM

That's so awesome... Whatever happened to the Lincoln-Douglas debates of tearing each
other to shreds face to face?

The_wall · 10-05-2004, 08:25 AM

I think this thread is worthy of tilted politics, this article doesn't seem like some whacky conspiracy theory.

MSD · 10-05-2004, 12:52 PM

Doesn't sound crazy at all, just disgraceful.

Willravel · 10-05-2004, 09:13 PM

I figured I'd play it on the safe side. If the Mods want to move it to politics *wink wink* it would be a nice response.

theburner · 10-06-2004, 10:36 AM

I agree.. Disgraceful about covers the situation...

bond007 · 10-07-2004, 09:31 AM

Quote:

That's so awesome... Whatever happened to the Lincoln-Douglas debates of tearing each other to shreds face to face?

ala the Dan Aykroyd - Jane Curtain exchanges on SNL... I'd love to hear the candidates begin their rebuttal with...

George, you ineffable twaddle of defecation!
--or--
John, you lyin' sack of sh*t!

mkultra · 10-07-2004, 12:10 PM

All I know is the entire time during the Cheney/Edwards debate I was hoping that one of them would go crazy and flip the table, triggering the steel cage to lower from the ceiling and the REAL debate would begin. I definetly would tune in to more political debates if they were settled via texas cage death matches.

pan6467 · 10-07-2004, 06:59 PM

I don't know reading the article I think it makes it sound worse than the true debates went. There has to be some order and I can understand the "soft" supporters and being quiet. Nothing could affect an election more than hearing a crowd of hardcore supporters boo or yeah on national television.

I do believe though that corporate funding should be eliminated and that the debates go to a truly non partisan group.

Just ask yourself this question...... If the Dem/GOP Nominee says he'll debate any 3rd, 4th, 5th party nominee and any question can be asked, then would it not look like the party declining had something to hide?

If I were Bush or Kerry, I'd have offered to debate any other nominee on at least 26 state ballots. I'd (as Bush or Kerry) have no restrictions on the questions and I'd even say that we would hold it on a day convienent to Bush/Kerry. IF Bush/Kerry declined I'd hammer him as to why and I would not let up until he accepted.

That in my opinion would have won the election for Bush/Kerry because everyone would have seen Bush/Kerry as a coward. I'd be on every tv news program asking what the other was hiding and why he did not believe that other parties had a voice and a right to be heard also.

But..... the GOP/Dem hatred is like that of brothers, they can truly hate each other and beat each other to a pulp but let someone else try to get involved and the 2 brothers bash the newcomer's head in as a team.

hokieian · 10-12-2004, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkultra

All I know is the entire time during the Cheney/Edwards debate I was hoping that one of them would go crazy and flip the table, triggering the steel cage to lower from the ceiling and the REAL debate would begin. I definetly would tune in to more political debates if they were settled via texas cage death matches.

Hmmm, brings up an interesting question?

Who would win between W and Kerry in a cage death match? My money is on Bush.

I would also take Cheney over Edwards; Cheney is older, but he's got quite a temper.

Bottom line, if the Presidency were settled by a cage death match, I say the Republicans win hands down.

Tophat665 · 10-12-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hokieian

Hmmm, brings up an interesting question?

Who would win between W and Kerry in a cage death match? My money is on Bush.

I would also take Cheney over Edwards; Cheney is older, but he's got quite a temper.

Bottom line, if the Presidency were settled by a cage death match, I say the Republicans win hands down.

True dat, but if it were settled by cage match, then Dean would have swept the primaries and I am pretty sure he could easily whack Bush.

Yeeeeeeaaaaaarrrrgh!

SitizenVZ · 10-14-2004, 06:25 PM

This thread was mistitled, facts and politics do not mix!!!

fuhrerhat · 10-15-2004, 12:44 PM

I've always been saying that there should be a bikini competition instead of a debate, but nobody listens...

Willravel · 10-15-2004, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Or...oh, I dunno...Badnarik!

I think that's a good point. Where were Nader and Badnarik? Well I can tell you what heppened to Badnerik: ON OCTOBER 8, 2004 MICHAEL BADNARIK WAS ARRESTED WHILE TRYING TO ENTER THE DEBATES IN ST. LOUIS!! Didn't know about that? Well...The USA Today, Atlanta Journal, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, New York Daily News, Seattle Times, Indianapolis Star, Boston Globe, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Miami Herald, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union Tribune, Kansas City Star and a long list of other so-called newspapers decided for whatever reason to spike the story. Aparently the leader of the third largest political party in the US, the Libratarians, being arrested outside the St. Lois debates isn't news.

The media blackout this entire campaign for Michael Badnarik is easily explained. The Libertarians do not have alot of money for ads and the Republicans and the Democrats do. There has obviously been an unspoken rule put into play across the board to not include Badnarik in any polls or to even mention his name. This circular logic keeps anyone, even someone from a political party that has been on the ballot in all 50 states since 1992, from ever reaching the magic 15% mark required for inclusion in the debates. And without being in the debates, it is virtually impossible to win an election. Or at least that is what Bush and Kerry are banking on.

Since Bush came to power there has been a steady attack on Freedom and Rights in America. The Patriot Act, secret courts, endorsed torture, endorsed torture via foreign cooperation, people locked up for holding a sign or having a bumper sticker not in favor of our current President, all in the name of the war on terror, justified by the 9-11 tragedy, the details of which President Bush has been working hard to make sure you don't find out about. With Patriot Act 2, the draft, and compulsory community service looming on the horizon, a future with Bush or Kerry in power does not look well for the Freedom-minded Americans that made this country great, and we are not sitting idly by.

It is incumbent on all of us Americans to insist that U.S. citizens have a meaningful opportunity to meet with lawyers and present their side of the story -- and to insist that courts know what they're talking about before consigning people to their fates. It is also incumbant upon us to inform ourselves, since the Press is AWOL, about ALL of the choices available for the Presidency on November 2ND.

StickODynomite · 10-15-2004, 03:11 PM

Quote:

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

"Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."

Ugh, go figure. There's always just a few specific issues that they focus on. I've already heard it all about the war a dozen times.. I want to know where they stand on issues like the one's above as well.

ObieX · 10-15-2004, 04:06 PM

The green party candidate (Cobb) was ALSO ARRESTED along with Badnarik. You'd think TWO presidential candidates getting arrested at a presidential debate would .. oh .. i dunno... make NEWS.

The reason they were arrested was because it is illegal for them to be excluded from a debte held on state property (state university). They crossed the police line to serve papers to show "just cause". This got them arrested.

Willravel · 10-15-2004, 04:13 PM

ObieX brings fouth a very good point. Cobb and Badnarik almost interfered with the fiction being played out. It would have been interesting if someone with a sense of justice and right had actually let them in. It was illegal for them to have been arrested, yet not one person has been heald accountable. God bless America? In this case, He doesn't.

Willravel · 10-15-2004, 04:34 PM

So as not to let this thread get too off tpoic, Im going to move the candidate arrest story to a new thread.

SecretMethod70 · 10-15-2004, 05:16 PM

Quote:

But..... the GOP/Dem hatred is like that of brothers, they can truly hate each other and beat each other to a pulp but let someone else try to get involved and the 2 brothers bash the newcomer's head in as a team.

This is an EXCELLENT characterization of the situation.

akdem · 10-18-2004, 07:56 PM

Wow... that really does make you wonder. Will there ever be a day again when the government does not have the final say on what the people of this country view through the media?

mrdarcy · 10-22-2004, 06:18 PM

I listen to Travis Smiley almost every weekday, but seldom do I hear anything that I can take seriously.
Connie Rice is a great entertainer and an asset to a talk radio format that tries to enflame the public. Unfortunately for Connie, her second cousin Condoleeza got all of the brains in her family.
Yes, a fair and impartial debate using a recognized debate format would be interesting, but I doubt that it would tell us voters any more than the program that we have. As imperfect as it is, we are able to discern a great deal from watching the candidates. As far as all of the rules, the networks have done a fair job at ignoring a lot of them

flstf · 10-23-2004, 02:12 AM

The debates are a poor way to determine statesman/leadership qualities. They just determine who is the most photogenic and cleverest quick quip artist. These traits probably preclude any decent leader from even running. Also any candidate that tells us the truth hasn't a snowballs chance in hell to be nominated much less actually elected.

That being said, if we are going to have these silly debates, at least they should be real ones, LOL.

10-04-2004, 09:54 AM	#1 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Some interesting FACTS about the debates.... When I found out about this, I went searching for a dependable source of information, not just some paranoid 'government is evi'l website. I decided that NPR, or National Public Radio, is a respected newsgroup that has been dependable. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4052162 I know that it sounds crazy, but it's all true. It kinda makes you take a long hard look at Nader... Please post content, not just links. And I agree, this could go in "Politics", so as you asked, it's been moved there. -lebell Connie Rice: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates Listen The Tavis Smiley Show, September 29, 2004 · After weeks of political wrangling, Sen. John Kerry and President Bush will square off for the first of three key presidential debates. Both camps have agreed to an elaborate, 32-page contract that spells out everything from the size of the dressing rooms to permitted camera angles. But the controversy over the debates threatens to overshadow the events themselves. Some citizen groups complain that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) isn't as non-partisan as it should be, and that Kerry and Bush won't be pressed on urban issues. Commentator Connie Rice says that's just the tip of the iceberg, and she's got another Top 10 list -- this time: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates. (10.) They aren't debates! "A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue," Rice says. "Under the ridiculous 32-page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent's points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions -- that's not a debate, that's a news conference." (9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986. "The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot, and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986." (8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan. "CPD should stand for 'Cloaking-device for Party Deceptions' -- it is not an independent commission on anything. The CPD is under the total control of the Republican and Democratic parties and by definition bipartisan, not non-partisan. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an 'unconscionable fraud.'" (7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign. "Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy." (6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates. "This is what I call the Obstruction of Democratic Debate Rule, which sets an impossibly high threshold for third-party candidates... Where are we, Russia? Isn't Vladimir Putin wiping out democracy in Russia by excluding all opposing candidates from the airwaves during his re-election campaigns? Most new ideas come from third parties -- they should be in the debates." (5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve. "It's not enough to rig the debate -- they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: 'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance." (4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence." "Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking." (3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds. "Other than the stupidity of the debate contract, what topic do you know that can be extendedly discussed in 30 seconds?" (2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control. "Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare." (1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists. The CPD is run by Frank Fahrenkopf, a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk, a top gambling lobbyist," Rice says. "And the biggest muliti-national corporations write the checks that fund the CPD -- Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and dozens more. The audience may have to be silent and motionless, but the corporate sponsors can have banners, beer tents, Budweiser girls handing out pamphlets protesting beer taxes -- a corporate-sponsored circus to go along with the Kabuki Debates. Could we get a more fitting description of our democracy?" Last edited by Lebell; 10-15-2004 at 03:18 PM..

10-04-2004, 07:12 PM	#5 (permalink)
Paradise Lost "Afternoon everybody." "NORM!" Location: Poland, Ohio // Clarion University of PA.	That's so awesome... Whatever happened to the Lincoln-Douglas debates of tearing each other to shreds face to face? __________________ "Marino could do it."

10-05-2004, 08:25 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_wall Psycho Location: Rhode Island biatches!	I think this thread is worthy of tilted politics, this article doesn't seem like some whacky conspiracy theory. __________________ "We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

10-06-2004, 10:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
theburner Canadian Beer Ambassador Location: Cumming, GA	I agree.. Disgraceful about covers the situation... __________________ Take Off Eh!

10-07-2004, 06:59 PM	#12 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I don't know reading the article I think it makes it sound worse than the true debates went. There has to be some order and I can understand the "soft" supporters and being quiet. Nothing could affect an election more than hearing a crowd of hardcore supporters boo or yeah on national television. I do believe though that corporate funding should be eliminated and that the debates go to a truly non partisan group. Just ask yourself this question...... If the Dem/GOP Nominee says he'll debate any 3rd, 4th, 5th party nominee and any question can be asked, then would it not look like the party declining had something to hide? If I were Bush or Kerry, I'd have offered to debate any other nominee on at least 26 state ballots. I'd (as Bush or Kerry) have no restrictions on the questions and I'd even say that we would hold it on a day convienent to Bush/Kerry. IF Bush/Kerry declined I'd hammer him as to why and I would not let up until he accepted. That in my opinion would have won the election for Bush/Kerry because everyone would have seen Bush/Kerry as a coward. I'd be on every tv news program asking what the other was hiding and why he did not believe that other parties had a voice and a right to be heard also. But..... the GOP/Dem hatred is like that of brothers, they can truly hate each other and beat each other to a pulp but let someone else try to get involved and the 2 brothers bash the newcomer's head in as a team. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-04-2004, 10:46 AM	#2 (permalink)
saut Registered User Location: Pittsburgh	It really is disgusting how controlled every aspect of our political landscape is today. Thanks for the link.

10-04-2004, 11:36 AM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	haha, that's true..

10-05-2004, 12:52 PM	#7 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Doesn't sound crazy at all, just disgraceful.

10-05-2004, 09:13 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I figured I'd play it on the safe side. If the Mods want to move it to politics wink wink it would be a nice response.

10-07-2004, 12:10 PM	#11 (permalink)
mkultra Crazy Location: Wylds of the Western Reserve	All I know is the entire time during the Cheney/Edwards debate I was hoping that one of them would go crazy and flip the table, triggering the steel cage to lower from the ceiling and the REAL debate would begin. I definetly would tune in to more political debates if they were settled via texas cage death matches.

10-14-2004, 06:25 PM	#15 (permalink)
SitizenVZ Tilted	This thread was mistitled, facts and politics do not mix!!!

10-15-2004, 12:44 PM	#16 (permalink)
fuhrerhat Tilted	I've always been saying that there should be a bikini competition instead of a debate, but nobody listens... __________________ Shazbot

10-15-2004, 04:06 PM	#19 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	The green party candidate (Cobb) was ALSO ARRESTED along with Badnarik. You'd think TWO presidential candidates getting arrested at a presidential debate would .. oh .. i dunno... make NEWS. The reason they were arrested was because it is illegal for them to be excluded from a debte held on state property (state university). They crossed the police line to serve papers to show "just cause". This got them arrested. __________________ We Must Dissent.

10-15-2004, 04:13 PM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	ObieX brings fouth a very good point. Cobb and Badnarik almost interfered with the fiction being played out. It would have been interesting if someone with a sense of justice and right had actually let them in. It was illegal for them to have been arrested, yet not one person has been heald accountable. God bless America? In this case, He doesn't.

10-15-2004, 04:34 PM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So as not to let this thread get too off tpoic, Im going to move the candidate arrest story to a new thread.

10-18-2004, 07:56 PM	#23 (permalink)
akdem Upright Location: Atlanta GA	Wow... that really does make you wonder. Will there ever be a day again when the government does not have the final say on what the people of this country view through the media? __________________ k thx.

10-22-2004, 06:18 PM	#24 (permalink)
mrdarcy Tilted Location: down the street from Graceland	I listen to Travis Smiley almost every weekday, but seldom do I hear anything that I can take seriously. Connie Rice is a great entertainer and an asset to a talk radio format that tries to enflame the public. Unfortunately for Connie, her second cousin Condoleeza got all of the brains in her family. Yes, a fair and impartial debate using a recognized debate format would be interesting, but I doubt that it would tell us voters any more than the program that we have. As imperfect as it is, we are able to discern a great deal from watching the candidates. As far as all of the rules, the networks have done a fair job at ignoring a lot of them __________________ [Insert pithy comment here]

10-23-2004, 02:12 AM	#25 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	The debates are a poor way to determine statesman/leadership qualities. They just determine who is the most photogenic and cleverest quick quip artist. These traits probably preclude any decent leader from even running. Also any candidate that tells us the truth hasn't a snowballs chance in hell to be nominated much less actually elected. That being said, if we are going to have these silly debates, at least they should be real ones, LOL.