Letters from Linden
by JACK LINDEN
After watching the debates among the Republican candidates for president and listening to interviews from former candidates, I have concluded the debates are a farce. What is true with the Republicans is also true with the Democrats. The debates show nothing about the candidates except thrown mud and snappy one-liners.
We need to recognize that these are not debates. They are merely questions asked by the moderator, without all of the candidates being asked to answer the same question.
In addition, the debates don’t have too much of an impact. It appears the loss of ratings by some candidates had nothing to do with their philosophy but rather with their factual mistakes or mental lapses.
What may be the biggest reason for not having debates is the amount of money that is being spent by the Political Action Committees (PACs). Those committees, because of a Supreme Court decision, have precluded the impact of the average citizen in the political process. The committees do not have to show who is giving them money. This now negates the $2,500 limit that a contributor can give to a single candidate. The impact of these committees was seen in the Iowa caucus, when the Romney PAC spent more than $3 million in an attempt to destroy the candidacy of Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich is planning on doing the same thing to Mr. Romney with television ads. Why have debates if the PACs can have more of an impact?
Based on what is happening after the debates, these shows are exposing liars or the biggest hypocrites in the political realm. How can the candidates of either political party ever give their support to the nominee after the scathing remarks and mudslinging they have engaged in? Two examples from the election of 2008: The ferocity of the Obama-Clinton primary went down as one of the fiercest in the annals of political campaigns. Yet, Hillary Clinton gave her support to Barrack Obama as if she had been his campaign manager. We see it now with Senator John McCain endorsing and campaigning for Mitt Romney as though Romney might be the second coming. How can the loser’s endorsement be anything except out and out hypocrisy when you consider what was said in the mudslinging?
The debates are not giving the voting public an insight into the candidates. Nothing in the debates has caused me to vote for any candidate. Let’s quit calling them debates.
If we want a true debate, give one topic to all candidates and allow them a set amount of time to respond. Then the moderator can ask each candidate questions to clarify their position. Then, and only then, will the television appearances have a valid impact on the selection of the candidate for the Presidency of the United States.
The debates now are farces. Why have them?
