The first debate, post-mortem
People are talking about what was said in the first debate. They're missing the point. The debate itself was a FAILURE. The structure was a failure, the moderator was a failure. There was no way to have a reasonable, intelligent debate within the existing framework.
This was a pre-arranged fistfight and Romney brought a knife. He bullied his way through it, lying through his teeth, and did not get called on it ONCE.
My friend Lois said, "That behavior goes along with his sense of entitlement, like when he said "You get to ask the questions you want to ask, I get to answer them the way I want to" when he was totally disregarding the question to say what he felt like saying in one interview. That "rich boy's" arrogance shines through with glaring intensity."
Romney the candidate didn't win--Republican meanness of spirit won. Democrats are like Charlie Brown falling for Lucy's offer to kick a football over and over and over again. We have rules we'll follow, right? Both candidates say sure, yes, of course. Then the debate starts and surprise! Romney decides he makes the rules and he doesn't have to pay attention to rules he agreed to, let alone small unimportant details like FACTS and TRUTH.
If it's not an equal playing field, the game is rigged. And just like it is in life for people like Mitt Romney the businessman, who feels he doesn't have to play by the rules of society, so it is for Mitt Romney the candidate, who feels he is entitled to do or say anything he wants with impunity.
And we let him. We let him because we get suckered into believing them because WE'RE NICE PEOPLE. We're polite. We play nicely with others. And we're totally unprepared for people who are as base, as mean, as selfish, and as apparently chronically sociopathic as Mitt Romney (sociopath: "a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience").
We let him because we can't believe that people could possibly be so rude, so ruthless, so blatantly GREEDY right to our faces. After eight years of W and Cheney you'd think we'd have learned.
There's no point in having debates if they can be manipulated so easily. The format needs to be changed.
Consequences. Make sure the candidates agree to rules and SIGN the equivalent of a contract. Then implement consequences for breaking those rules, and make sure that those rules and consequences--and the fact that the candidates agreed in writing to them--are repeated to the audience as often as necessary. For example:
* If someone interrupts, or goes over, or makes a baseless claim, cut their microphone.
* If they do it again, cut their remaining time.
* If they do it again, they lose a turn on the next question.
* One more time and they're out of the debate, and the remaining candidate will get the rest of the time alone.
Content. Each claim by a candidate needs to be backed up with a specific example.
Moderator. There should be more than one, chosen for their track record in being not only fair and polite but firm and focused, not soft-spoken. This panel should do some of the following:
* Asking questions
* Making sure rules are followed and consequences implemented
* Consulting with each other if there are etiquette problems
* There's safety in numbers, and they might feel more confident taking control
FACTS. There should be a team of fact checkers and the moderator(s) should CONFRONT candidates if the facts don't check out. And NOT BACK DOWN. If a candidate doesn't agree to that, then the candidate who does agree can have the whole 90 minutes to discuss his/her ideas like an interview.
We can't beat these bullies on their own terms because they play dirty. And a substantial portion of the electorate is too ignorant to understand what's going on. So we have to bully them back, but on our own terms.
Any other ideas?
