“Candidates Should Not Dodge Poitical Debates,” Larry Penner.
I agree with the author that candidates should be held to task for not participating in political debates. However…..
Not all debates are useful. The first televised debate was 1960, Richard Nixon v. John F. Kennedy. Those who listened on the radio felt Nixon had won. But Nixon had been sick recently and was sweating profusely. Kennedy in contrast was calm, cool, and poised, looked directly into the camera, and radiated warmth and sincerity.
Some feel the television won Kennedy the presidency. I remember clearly (I was a freshman in high school) the Carter/Ford debate in 1976. The next day’s headline: who won the debate? In the 1992 Vice Presidential debate, Admiral James Bond Stockdale, H. Ross Perot’s running mate, gave the impression that he was lost and was a doddering, shell-shocked old man.
I personally think he was an extremely intelligent man.
People see in debates what they expect to see and what they feel they should see. For reasons unknown, Ronald Reagan acquired the moniker of “The Great Communicator.” According to Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Manson and wrote – among other books – “Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder” (no comment on guilt or innocence), people saw a glamorous Hollywood actor vs. a peanut farmer from a one stoplight town in the South. That wasn’t the only reason Carter lost, of course. The media absolutely destroyed Dan Quayle, George Bush’s Vice President. I thought Quayle also came off as extremely intelligent and well-versed with the issues.
If the people are stupid enough to vote for candidates who don’t participate in debates, who should we blame? If people are stupid enough to vote for the candidate with the toothiest smile, who should we blame? The candidates or the people?
Nat Weiner
Bronx