West Wing vs. Reality
 

I watched the fictional debate last night on The West Wing between Democrat Matt Santos (played by Jimmy Smits), and Republican Arnold Vinick (played by Alan Alda). As I watched them go back and fourth, talking about everything from energy to campaign financing, I started to realize something...this debate was better than the real thing. Thinking back to the Kerry/Bush debates, I could remember them starting to clash, then hiding under their desks or simply smiling and shutting up. I remember non answers and question dodging. At the time, I figured it was normal, but now that I've seen what it can be I wonder if debates are even worth happening outside of fictional tv anymore.

I used to be on the debate team in high school, where we would debate on anything and everything. I know that if a debator tried to dodge a question, the opponent would eat him or her alive for it. In a particular debate, I was trying to show that the entertainment industry served often as a distraction from isues more important to those who are being entertained. I asked my opponent, "Why do you think that it's necesary for actors and actresses to try to maintain a persona for public view, and why do you think we we pay so much attention to this, despite the fact that it has little to do even with the movies they make?" (or something to that effect), to which my opponent replied something about the government being responsible for it's own publicity, whihc isn't true. I ripped him apart for not directly answering my question. I won the debate because he tried to dodge a question that he either wasn't able to answer or didn't want to answer.

"Republicans have tried to turn `liberal' into a bad word," said Santos (Smits) in the episode last night. "Well, liberals ended slavery in this country."

"A Republican president ended slavery," Vinick (Alda) retorted.

"Yes, a LIBERAL Republican, senator. What happened to THEM?"

Can you imagine W. Bush and Kerry or W. Bush and Gore saying something like that? Can you imaigne Daddy Bush and Clinton saying something like that? I certianally can't. Why is that? Would they lose at the polls or lose finaincing for saying something like that? Probably not. The only reason not to debate in a more aggrsssive mannor is insecurity.

After last night, I'd vote for Alda or Smits over Kerry or Bush, simply because you can tell by the debate exactly where they stand. Kudos to West Wing.

A.) For the record...I love The West Wing. It's one of the best shows on the ar.
B.) You do know that it's all fake and made up...right? Just kiddin'...kinda.
C.) Fantasy should be better than reality. Otherwise, what's the point?

I feel like I've been missing out!! This was the first episode I've watched.
If you mean scripted, then yes. The debate was live for East and West coast though. Very cool idea.
That's true, but this was so many lightyears ahead of anything I've seen in a presidential debate ever that I got kinda pissed. I know that if I were to run for president, I'd have a good answer for any question that was thrown at me and I'd know when to push the other candidate. How hard would it have been for Kerry to make Bush look like an evil man or visa versa? How hard would it have been to call each other on the real stuff and to actually answer all the questions directly? I get the feeling that if I were given a week to prepare I could have beaten Kerry or Bush or Gore (maybe not Clinton).

DVDs for seasons 1-5 are available and seasons 1 -4 are well worth watching...

first, i must say: the whole liberal/conservative argument when comparing history and contemporary events is worthless. the meaning behind those labels shifts measurably on a year-to-year basis, only the simple would find applying the 1860's criteria to present politics a relevant exercise.
but i digress...

i mean this with no disrespect to you willravel: but you would, in all likelihood, be completely dismantled by any professional politician in open debate. it's obvious i haven't experienced what oratorical wonders you possess, its just that odds are that you'd get smashed.

and for this reason: the current media/electoral climate dictates that presidential candidates employ such a dull and amorphous tone of debate. they know that any misstep will be replayed a thousand times, any moment of passion will be ridiculed, any attempts to form complex arguments will be taken out of context. it's not that they are not capable of such stirring debate, it's that they have not incentive to do so. why risk it when playing a "nickle defense" is enough to please your base? why extend yourself when you know you'll be taken out of context by dan rather, or bill o'reilly, or jon stewart?

i'm sure that if they were competing against a high school debate team they'd do just fine. however, the public will crucify anyone who doesn't play it safe... so that's what they do to get our votes.

We're not talking about professional politicians, we're talking aobut presidential candidates.

I say that jokingly, but I have to wonder. I'm not by any means a master debator and I am not as knowing as many in matters political, but I can make my way through a debate without lying or exaggerating or dodging a question. I have no wish to become president, and I think there are a multitude of people who would make a better president than I, but I'd put roachboy against Kerry any day. I'd put host against Bush any day (I'd search him for a weapon first, and have bulletproof glass and samoan guards).

I cannot tell you how many times in the last few years....I wished our government compared in some small measure, to that depicted in the West Wing.

Hah! host against the President?

I can just picture host arriving at the debate pushing a wheelbarrow full of newspapers and blog printoffs. Each debate question is answered by a furious storm of newspaper clippings...

:lol:

only funnin w/ya host. :thumbsup:

The West Wing debate was very interesting and Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda did a great job play acting as real candidates. I don't think that being quick witted and coming up with the best comebacks in debate are the best qualities to look for in a leader. There has to be more substance than just having the gift of gab which of course both these actors have in abundance.

Some of the leaders I have had the most respect for have been very intelligent but not so quick on the comeback and did not say much but when they did it was usually something of substance. They were not so much interested in sticking it to someone but rather intent on solving a problem.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!!!!! Yes, I totally agree - it's so true. I would add though, irate, you and I would have to help push other wheelbarrows full of papers for host - then run and duck for cover as he began his staements.

We could even have our mods help out moderating, pleading with host to keep it under 1 minute.

I love ya host, TFP would not be the same without you.

Poor president - he will never know what hit him!

host, only minutes from a post:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...clown/host.jpg

That's why Host deserves our respect. Loved the pic, powerclown. :D

lol

poor host, the hits just keep on coming.

in his defense... he does seem to take a lot of time researching his posts. even though some of his sources seem pretty bizarre to me, i do respect that in a political discussion.

sorry for the brief threadjack

Elph, I second the respect: this thread is almost turning into an impromptu "roast for host" - if that ain't respect...... ;)

Powerclown - awesome pic - I hope uses it for his avatar!

West Wing vs. Reality anyone? The fact is that because of Hosts ability to actually do his homework, he is very well informed and that would be a serious tool in a debate, espically against someone who doesn't do well stating facts...like, say, the President.

Well we've all seen what happens when Bush goes off script.
http://weather.ou.edu/%7Emjames/albums/yfp/bush-deb.gif
scaaaaaary.